Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 21 (JK)

Rukhsana Akhtar v. State of J&K & Ors.

2012-02-02

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, VIRENDER SINGH

body2012
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2011 passed in SWP No. 1704/2008. The issue concerns the engagement of an Anganwari Worker in the Angarwari Centre Mohalla Chattra Barket, Panch Constituency No.7, Panchayat Sailan of Tehsil Surankote by the official aspondents herein. 2. The appellant as well as the 5th respondent applied for the post for engagement which was notified on 01.01.2008. In the format of the application there was a specific clause asking for the marital status of the applicant whether married or unmarried. Admittedly the appellant in her application form specifically claimed herself to be unmarried. Though the appellant was provisionally selected, when objections were called for at the instance of 5th respondent, it was brought to the notice of the official respondents that the appellant was married, that her husband who is serving the Police Department was a reslident of Tehsil Mendhar and not Mohalla Chattra. When the said objection was raised, the 4th respondent is stated to have made an on the spot enquiry on 29.09.2008 to verify the Correctness of the said objection. In that enquiry it came out that the appellant was already married and was having two children and her husband was employed in the Police Department and was a resident Of Tehsil Mendhar. In the above stated background the provisional selection of the appellant was cancelled and the next candidate in the order of merit, i.e. respondent no.5, came to be appointed. 3. Mr. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, vehemently contended that as per the notification dated 01.01.2008, though in the format the marital status was called for but the criteria for the selection did not contain any specific condition that the marital status would disentitle the applicant to apply for the post. The learned counsel would, therefore, contend that the appellant being a Khana Nashin daughter continue to live at Mohalla Chattra Barket, Panch Constituency No. 7, Panchayat Sailan of Tehsil Surankote, consequently her provisional selection ought to have been confirmed. The learned counsel also contended that, in any event, the 5th respondent was not residing within Ward No.7 where the Anganwari Centre was located, that she was residing in Ward No. 10 and, therefore, her selection cannot be sustained. 4. The learned counsel also contended that, in any event, the 5th respondent was not residing within Ward No.7 where the Anganwari Centre was located, that she was residing in Ward No. 10 and, therefore, her selection cannot be sustained. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the material papers placed before us, we do not find any scope to entertain this appeal. 5. In the order of the learned Single Judge the conditions for engagement of selected candidates have been noted. In one of the conditions it has been specifically stated that if a candidate has furnished wrong address to get selected against the designated Anganwari Centre, the engagement is liable to be terminated if such wrong information comes to the notice of the authorities. 6. Admittedly the appellant was married but yet she suppressed the said vital information and claimed herself to be un-married girl by not furnishing the name and address of her husband. On the other hand, while furnishing her father's name she only furnished the address of her father. The learned counsel would now contend that the appellant being Khana Nashin daughter was living with her father even after her marriage and, therefore, the Voter Identity Card and the Voter List contains the name of the appellant in Mohalla Chattra falling in Panch Constituency No.7, Panchayat Sailan of Tehsil Surankote and her provisional selection was in order. 7. We are not inclined to countenance such a submission. When once the appellant suppressed the vital information about her marital status and it turned out that she was married to a person whose place of residence was a different Tehsil, suppression of such a vital information was very crucial to the selection. Once the authorities came to know about the said information, they were entitled to determine the validity of the provisional selection of the appellant based on such incorrect information. Viewed in that respect the action of the official respondents in having not proceeded with the provisional selection of the appellant, based on such vital information, cannot be faulted. Moreover in the objections filed on behalf of the respondent nos. Viewed in that respect the action of the official respondents in having not proceeded with the provisional selection of the appellant, based on such vital information, cannot be faulted. Moreover in the objections filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 it has been specifically averred that the 5th respondent was found to be second in the order of merit and also a local candidate and consequently she was eligible to be engaged. Therefore, while cancelling the provisional selection of the appellant the 5th respondent came to be engaged. The said statement made on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 remains unrebutted. Therefore, on this ground as well the engagement of the 5th respondent cannot be interfered with. 8. As far as the allegation of the appellant that the 5th respondent is not a resident of Ward No.7 is concerned, we do not find any such plea having been raised in the writ petition except mere allegation that the 5th respondent was not eligible to be considered for the engagement as Anganwari Worker for that particular Anganwari Centre. Therefore, it is not now open to the appellant to raise such a plea as against the 5th respondent in order to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. As per the proceedings of the official respondents, the 5th respondent was stated to be next in the order of merit after the appellant. In such circumstances when once the appellant was found t8 be ineligible for the engagement, the 5th respondent being next eligible candidate, her engagement cannot be faulted. 10. In such circumstances, we do not find any scope to entertain this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 11. No costs.