Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 341 (JK)

Zaif Begum v. State of J and K and Ors.

2011-07-06

J.P.SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT J.P. Singh, J. 1. Besides other eligible candidates, the Petitioner-Zaif Begum and Respondent No. 5-Fareeda Begum too competed for Selection as Anganwari worker for Anganwari Centre Said Balaki Ward No. 8 Panch: Batair, in response to Advertisement Notice No. DIP/J-190 dated 10.04.2008. 2. The Child Development Project Officer, (Member Secretary Selection Committee), Block Buffliaz, found the Petitioner better in merit and, therefore, engaged her as Anganwari Worker. 3. Respondent No. 5 made several written requests and reminders to the concerned Authorities seeking her Selection in place of the Petitioner urging that her merit was incorrectly evaluated, in that, the marks obtained by her in English Subject, which she cleared in October-November Session 1991, had not been taken into consideration, as a result whereof, she was deprived of her right to engagement as Anganwari Worker. 4. Finding that the marks obtained by her in English Subject in Session October-November 1991 were not included while evaluating her merit, the Respondent's Representation was accepted by the District Social Welfare Officer, Poonch, the Convener Selection Committee, who, accordingly, cancelled the Petitioner's Selection and engagement and directed the Child Development Project Officer, Baflliaz to process the Respondent's case for Selection and engagement as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Said Balaki Ward No. 8, Fazalabad Batair. 5. Aggrieved by the District Social Welfare Officer's Order dated 31.12.2008, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the District Social Welfare Officer's Order. 6. Appearing for the Petitioner, her learned Counsel Mr. Siddiqui submitted that the Petitioner was entitled to hearing before she could be deprived of her right to continue as Anganwari Worker which she had earned pursuant to her Selection, And the omission of the District Social Welfare Officer, to provide her hearing before issuing the order, renders the order unsustainable for violation of the principles of Natural Justice. 7. Per contra, Mr. 7. Per contra, Mr. Verma appearing for Respondent No. 5 would submit that the error committed by the Selection Authority in omitting to take into account the marks obtained by the Respondent in English subject, while evaluating her merit, for Selection, being apparent on the face of records, the Petitioner was not entitled to any hearing in the matter and the order passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, correcting the error which had appeared in the Selection, did not warrant any interference, in that, all that the District Social Welfare Officer had done was to set the records straight by declaring the Respondent selected as Anganwari Worker on the basis of her higher merit. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on records. The material produced by the parties indicates that Respondent No. 5 had produced two Certificates along with her Application Form viz. the Secondary School Examination Certificate of Session October-November 1990 and Secondary School Examination Certificate of Session October-November 1991. 9. As per the Marks Certificate of the Secondary School Examination, October-November Session 1990, having obtained 38 marks, the Petitioner was shown to have failed in English Subject whereas according to the Marks Certificate of the Secondary School Examination, October-November Session 1991, she was shown to have passed the Examination in English Subject securing 67 marks. 10. While evaluating her merit, the Selection Committee, however, did not take into consideration the marks obtained by her in English Subject in October-November Session of 1991 and, accordingly, indicated her percentage of marks as 41.09, on the basis of the marks obtained by her in English Subject in the Session October-November 1990. Had the marks obtained by the Respondent in English Subject in October-November Session 1991 been taken into account, her merit points, including the viva-voce would rise to 46.78, i.e., more than the Petitioner whose merit points were 46.71. 11. The Respondent has placed on records a Receipt issued by the Office of the Child Development Project Officer, Surankote/Baflliaz indicating that both the Marks Cards of Respondent No. 5, i.e., the one where she was shown to have failed securing 38 marks in Session October-November 1990 and the other where she was shown to have passed the Examination having obtained 67 marks in Session October-November 1991, were available with the Official Respondents. 12. 12. In view of the above factual position, it becomes apparent that the merit of Respondent No. 5 being more than that of the Petitioner, it was she who was entitled to Selection and not the Petitioner who was lower in merit to her. 13. During the course of consideration of the matter, the Petitioner's learned Counsel was unable to justify the Petitioner's plea in the Writ Petition that Respondent No. 5 had acquired better percentage of marks in the Matriculation Examination, after the cut-off date and was, therefore, disentitled to Selection as Anganwari Worker, in view of the material placed by the Respondent on records which demonstrated that the Respondent had improved her marks in English Subject much before the issuance of the Notification inviting Applications for Selection as Anganwari Worker. 14. The short question that, therefore, falls for consideration is as to whether in view of the admitted position that Respondent No. 5 was better in merit to the Petitioner, the Petitioner would still be entitled to hearing before her Selection could be withdrawn, which on the face of it was unjustified. 15. In view of the admitted position on facts that the Respondent's merit was more than that of the Petitioner and on the basis whereof it was the Respondent who was entitled to Selection and not the Petitioner, I am of the view that the Petitioner was not entitled to any hearing in the matter before withdrawal of her Selection, which was the result of an error apparent on the face of the records and, in this view of the matter, no opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner was required to correct an error apparent on the face of records. Even if, the Petitioner were to be allowed opportunity of hearing in the matter, she would have nothing else to say in the matter in view of the admitted better merit position of the Respondent, except gaining time to perpetuate her illegal continuance as Anganwari Worker. 16. For all what has been said above, the order passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Poonch, withdrawing the illegal Selection and engagement of the Petitioner which had taken place because of the Respondent's omission to recognize the better merit of Respondent No. 5 does not, therefore, call for any interference. 17. 16. For all what has been said above, the order passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Poonch, withdrawing the illegal Selection and engagement of the Petitioner which had taken place because of the Respondent's omission to recognize the better merit of Respondent No. 5 does not, therefore, call for any interference. 17. The Petitioner's Writ Petition is, therefore, found without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed lifting the interim order made on 15.01.2009.