Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 545 (JK)

Atiqa Banco v. State & Ors.

2012-08-31

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. Learned counsel for the parties submitted at the Bar that the writ petition may be disposed of at this very stage. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has called in question Order No. CDPO/Br/Estt/2011/688-92 dated 30.11.2011, passed by respondent No. 4, whereby respondent No. 5 came to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Pathpora, Aharbal. He has also sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue formal engagement order in favour of the petitioner. 3. What is gathered from the record is that an advertisement notice came to be issued for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in Anganwadi Centre at Pathpora, Aharbal, Tehsil Beerwah, District Budgam, which was published in a local daily, Srinagar Times (annexure 'B' to the writ petition). The petitioner and four other persons, namely, Malik Tahira Masarat, Malik Razia Batoor, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 herein applied for the said post. Malik Tahira Masarat and Malik Razia Batoor have chosen not to appear in the interview; thus only two candidates, i.e., the petitioner and respondent No. 5, were contenders for the post in question. It is contended that the participation of respondent No. 5 was objected to by the petitioner and by the residents of Pathpora, Aharbal, on the ground that one of the conditions contained in the advertisement notice was that only those candidates residing at Pathpora, Aharbal, are to be considered. It is submitted that respondent No. 5 is the resident of Challapora and, therefore, is not eligible. The petitioner, being a resident of the said area, is the only eligible candidate entitled to be considered and appointed on the said post. It is submitted that officials of the Social Welfare Department and the Revenue Department conducted inquiry and came to the conclusion that respondent No. 5 is not the resident of Pathpora (See annexure 'E' & 'F' to the writ petition) and, accordingly, the petitioner was tentatively selected against the said vacancy. 4. It is submitted further that Respondent No. 5 questioned the tentative selection of the petitioner by medium of writ petition, bearing SWP No. 649/2011. 4. It is submitted further that Respondent No. 5 questioned the tentative selection of the petitioner by medium of writ petition, bearing SWP No. 649/2011. While considering the averments made in that writ petition coupled with the arguments advanced at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner therein, the Court passed an order whereby it was provided that respondent No. 5 therein, i.e., petitioner herein, shall not be appointed as Anganwadi Worker, Pathpora, Aharbal, Village Sonapah, if not appointed till date. If already appointed, in that eventuality her appointment was directed to remain subject to outcome of main writ petition. It is submitted further that the respondent No. 5 withdrew the said writ petition vide order dated 09.12.2011 and through indirect channels succeeded in getting herself engaged as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Pathpora, Aharbal, against the post in question. 5. Official respondents have resisted the writ petition on the ground that it is a fact that respondent No. 5 had filed the writ petition and an interim direction was passed and during the pendency of the said writ petition, after noticing interim direction, a team of officers comprising Deputy Director, ICDS; District Programme Officer, Budgam, and CDPO, ICDS, Beerwah, conducted a joint visit of the area and observed and reported that Mtr. Rafiqa Akhter, respondent No. 5 herein, and the petitioner Mtr. Atiqa Bahoo belong to one and the same hamlet in terms of geographical location and also stated that she was entitled to consideration and was also entitled to be selected, being meritorious as compared to the petitioner herein. In this view of the matter, the team of officers recommended that the case of respondent No. 5 needed to be reconsidered for her engagement as Anganwadi Worker on the basis of merit and subject to the condition of the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition filed by respondent No. 5. Consequently, the official respondents issued cancellation order of engagement against the petitioner vide order dated 21.11.2011 (see Annexure R5 of the reply filed by respondent No. 5) and have made selection of respondent No. 5 which is subject matter of the writ petition at hand. 6. The respondent No. 5 was tentatively selected which fact is substantiated by the newspaper cutting of Srinagar News and ultimately the selection of respondent No. 5 was approved vide order dated 30.11.2011. 6. The respondent No. 5 was tentatively selected which fact is substantiated by the newspaper cutting of Srinagar News and ultimately the selection of respondent No. 5 was approved vide order dated 30.11.2011. It is further contended by respondent No. 5 that entire exercise was made by the team of officers of the respondent-department and the petitioner has not questioned the order of cancellation, the order of tentative select list and also the finding recorded by the team of officers of the respondent department. 7. The respondent No. 5 has resisted the writ petition on the ground that she hails from the same habitation and during the pendency of the writ petition full-fledged inquiry was conducted by the respondent-department and recommendation was made pursuant to which the tentative selection issued in favour of the writ petitioner was cancelled and tentative selection list was issued in her favour in terms of annexure R5 and R6. She has also placed on record the reports, which do, prima facie, disclose that the petitioner hails from the same habitation. Further, it is contended that the petitioner ought to have questioned the inquiry conducted, recommendation made by the inquiry officers, cancellation order against her, selection order of respondent No. 5 dated 21.11.2011, which she has failed to do and, therefore, she is not entitled to the reliefs claimed for in the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked as to whether she wants to amend the writ petition, in order to challenge the inquiry report, recommendation made, cancellation order issued against her, tentative selection of respondent No. 5 but she insisted on disposal of this writ petition at this very stage. 9. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has not questioned the inquiry report, findings recorded and recommendation made by the team of officers of the respondent-department and has also not challenged the order by virtue of which her tentative selection came to be cancelled. She has also chosen not to question the tentative selection of respondent No. 5 dated 21.11.2011. 10. In the aforementioned backdrop, besides what has been said hereinabove, writ petition merits dismissal. I do so accordingly. Writ petition is dismissed along with CMP. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs. 11. The record produced by the official respondents is returned to Mr. 10. In the aforementioned backdrop, besides what has been said hereinabove, writ petition merits dismissal. I do so accordingly. Writ petition is dismissed along with CMP. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs. 11. The record produced by the official respondents is returned to Mr. Hilal Akber Lone, learned appearing counsel for them in the open Court.