Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 236 (JK)

Ravinder Kour v. State & Ors.

2011-05-09

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2011
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner was engaged as Anganwari Helper vide order No. DSWOJ/2467/2010 and CDPO/R/1062/2010 dated 12.03.2010 in Anganwari Cen­tre, Ward No. 8, Indra Nagar. The petitioner was accordingly engaged as An­ganwari Helper in the aforementioned Anganwari Centre vide order dated 15th March, 2010. A representation was received by the District Social Welfare Officer, Jammu, in which, it was alleged that the petitioner is not resident of Ward No. 8, Indra Colony. The said representation was forwarded to the Block Development Officer, R. S. Pura for re-verification. On re-verification, the Block Development Officer, R.S. Pura found that the petitioner does not exist in the Voter list of Ward No. 8, Indra Nagar nor is the Ration Card holder of the said area. It is on the basis of these reports that the selection committee took a decision to cancel the engage­ment of the petitioner and to re-advertise the said post. 3. Petitioner being aggrieved of the said order has challenged the same in this writ petition. 4. On notice issued, respondents have filed reply affidavit/objections. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is resident of Ward No. 8, Indra Nagar and the reason for filing the application to place on record some documents is to evidence the fact that the petitioner is resident of Ward No. 8, Indra Nagar. Learned counsel also submitted that the decision to cancel the engagement of petitioner has been taken at her back and without affording oppor­tunity of hearing. 6. Mr. Qazi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the re-verification conducted by the concerned Officer, it surfaced that the petitioner is not resident of Ward No. 8 Indra Nagar. It is on this reason that the decision was taken by the selection committee to cancel the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwari Helper. Learned counsel also submitted that a fresh notification was issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates of Ward No. 8 Indra Nagar, to seek consideration for being selected/engaged as Anganwari Helper. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in terms of order impugned in this writ petition, the engagement of the petitioner has been cancelled. 7. Learned counsel also submitted that a fresh notification was issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates of Ward No. 8 Indra Nagar, to seek consideration for being selected/engaged as Anganwari Helper. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in terms of order impugned in this writ petition, the engagement of the petitioner has been cancelled. 7. The petitioner was considered by the duly constituted selection committee for being selected for being engaged as Anganwari Helper in Ward No. 8 Indra Nagar after considering all the documents made available by the petitioner for being selected as Anganwari Helper. It is on the basis of the recommendations of selection committee that the petitioner was engaged as Anganwari Helper. 8. The representation filed against the petitioner was forwarded to the EDO concerned by the District Social Welfare Officer, Jammu. The order impugned No. CDPO/R/91/2010 dated 30.04.2010 issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Jammu, no where shows that either the copy of representation was served on the petitioner or she was associated in the process of re-verification by the concerned EDO. The enquiry so conducted stands vitiated in the eye of law. 9. The CDPO vide its communication dated 27.4.2010 informed the petitioner that a representation was filed from the local people and said representation was sent to the Block Development Officer, R.S. Pura for re-verification of resident certificate. It was also stated in the said communication that the Block Development Officer, R.S. Pura in his re-verification report has stated that the petitioner is not figuring in the Voter List and is not also Ration Card Holder, and the petitioner was accordingly directed to submit documentary proof of her residence within two days, as otherwise, it will be presumed that she has nothing to say in the matter. The petitioner submitted the requisite attested photocopies of Ration Card, Land/House, Electricity Bill, Electricity Connection to the Child Development Officer, R.S. Pura Jammu on 28.4.2010. 10. Perusal of the communication dated 30.4.2010 reveals that copy of the representation was not served on the petitioner and she was not associated with re-verification process conducted by the concerned Block Development Officer. Re-verification has been conducted by the Authority at the back of the petitioner. The report, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be relied upon for ordering cancellation of engagement of the petitioner. 11. Re-verification has been conducted by the Authority at the back of the petitioner. The report, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be relied upon for ordering cancellation of engagement of the petitioner. 11. The communication dated 30.04.2010 does not also refer to the documents produced by the petitioner to the CDPO, R.S. Pura, Jammu. The impugned com­munication dated 30.04.2010 is based on representation and report of an Authority which for the above stated reasons cannot be relied upon to the disadvantage of the petitioner. As the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing or associated with conducting the re-verification, the impugned communication on this ground alone cannot be sustained in law. The impugned communication stands vitiated being issued without following the principle of natural justice. 12. In terms of impugned order, the selection committee has only taken any decision to cancel the engagement of the petitioner. The Competent Authority has not passed any dis-engagements order. The re-advertisement notice in such factual scenario is nothing, but an abuse of the Authority and cannot be relied upon. 13. For the above stated reason, this petition is allowed in the following manner: By issuance of writ of Certiorari, Communication No. CDPO/R/91/2010 dated 30.4.2010 issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Jammu is quashed. The respondents, if advised, to proceed in the matter and afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to consider the documents which may be produced by him and thereafter the Competent Authority may pass the appropriate orders. As there is no disengagement order issued by the Competent Authority, petitioner has been prevented from discharg­ing duties illegally and un-authorizedly, in these circumstances she should be entitled to the wages. 14. Since no disengagement order was passed by the Competent Authority, respondents to release salary/wages to the petitioner as well.