Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 400 (JK)

Monika Rajput v. State

2013-07-12

TASHI RABSTAN

body2013
1. Petitioner through the medium of present petition has called in question the action on the part of official respondents in facilitating the selection and engagement of respondent No.5 against the post of Anganwadi Worker on honorarium basis for Anganwadi Centre located at Mohalla Rajput, situated in Ward No.7 of Village and Panchayat Londi, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua. The ground urged in the petition is that respondent no.5 is actually not the resident of Mohalla Rajput, rather she is resident of Ward No.6, Mohalla Harijan of Village Londi. While putting her claim against the post in question, it is averred by the petitioner that she is possessing qualification of Graduation and Diploma in Software Engineering, Accounts and HTML, therefore, is more qualified than respondent No.5, who is simply a Matriculate. 2. The precise case of the petitioner is that the selection/engagement of respondent No.5 as Anganwadi Worker has been facilitated by the official respondents, despite the fact that she is not the resident of Ward No.7, thus, has failed to qualify the basic requirement and mandate of Anganwadi Scheme promulgated by the State Government. Therefore, the impugned action on the part of official respondents 1 to 4 in facilitating the selection/engagement of respondent No.5 against the post is bad in law. 3. Upon notice, respondents have filed the reply. While maintaining the selection of respondent No.5 against the post of Anganwadi Worker, the official respondents denied the averments made in the writ petition. It would be profitable to reproduce paragraphs no. 7 and 8, and 9 to 11 of the reply filed by the official respondents hereunder :- "7-8. That petitioner along with other eligible candidates applied for engagement as AWW for Mohalla Rajput. It is stated on the basis of Resolution passed by local persons of village Londi under the Chairmanship of Numberdar, Chowkidar, Member Panchayat Londi, W.No.7 conveyed a list of seven candidates belonging to village Londi Mohalla Rajput. A copy of the same is joined as Annexure-B, therefore, the assertions of petitioner are totally incorrect. It is further brought to the notice of Hon'ble Court, the selected candidate annexed certificate of residence issued by Numberdar and Chowkidar, copy of identity card of her father, voter list of W.No.VII, BPL ration card support at the time of interview. A copy of the same is joined as Annexure-B, therefore, the assertions of petitioner are totally incorrect. It is further brought to the notice of Hon'ble Court, the selected candidate annexed certificate of residence issued by Numberdar and Chowkidar, copy of identity card of her father, voter list of W.No.VII, BPL ration card support at the time of interview. As already submitted as per requirement of advertisement notice, the only requirement of place of residence is of mohalla Rajput and no ward number is mentioned though the selected candidate has also annexed the proof of being the resident of W.No.7 also. As regards list of certificates reproduced in this para it is submitted as per requirement certificate in support of proof of residence is required from Tehsildar/ N.Tehsildar/ Numberdar/Chowkidar concerned and not from B.D.O. It is stated as regards certificate of Sarpanch and Panch mentioned at C,D,E, the same panch and sarpanch had earlier passed a resolution showing the petitioner and respondent being residence of mohalla Rajput and now cannot turn around after the selection and issue fresh certificate contradicting the certificate earlier issued and signed by them. Copies aforesaid are joined as Annexure-C,D,E,F and G in support of objections. 9-11. That it is stated, the respondents considered the documents and assessed the merit of petitioner and other candidates on the basis of Govt. Order No.7 SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 providing weightage to academic qualification and viva-voce 15 points, the respondent No.5 was selected on the basis of higher merit. It is further submitted, the selected candidate produced a certificate duly authenticated by Tehsildar showing her to be resident of Mohalla Rajputan. A copy of certificate of residence is annexed as H for the perusal of Hon'ble Court, the story put-forth by the petitioner gets falsified by the certificate of Tehsildar and the writ petition needs to be rejected." 4. Respondent No.5 has also filed the reply countering what is alleged in the writ petition against her selection/engagement as Anganwadi Worker. It is claimed that an inquiry was conducted by the Revenue Department as regards her place of residence, and after inquiry, it has been established that she is the resident of Mohalla Rajput, Village Londi. Respondent No.5 has also filed the reply countering what is alleged in the writ petition against her selection/engagement as Anganwadi Worker. It is claimed that an inquiry was conducted by the Revenue Department as regards her place of residence, and after inquiry, it has been established that she is the resident of Mohalla Rajput, Village Londi. It is further contended that as the petitioner did not exhaust the alternative efficacious remedy available to her, i.e., to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner concerned, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. It would be profitable to reproduce paragraph no. 7 of the reply filed by respondent no.5, though numbered as 6, hereunder:- "6. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 7, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner as well as the answering respondent submitted their application forms and participated in the selection process carried out by the selection authority and on the basis of exception and outstanding merit of the answering respondent, the answering respondent has been duly selected by the committee for her engagement as Anganwadi Worker in Mohalla Rajput Village Londi. The averments of the petitioner pertaining to the residence of the answering respondent in Ward No.6 Mohalla Harizan is factually incorrect and contrary to record and specifically denied. The documents attached by the petitioner are her own creation and the same are contrary to the record. The answering respondent craves the indulgence of the Hon'ble Court to the finding recorded by the Revenue Authority wherein the residence of the answering respondent has been shown to be in Mohalla Rajput village Londi. The mentioning of the wards in this paragraph is totally incorrect and contrary to the record. The answering respondent is the resident of Mohalla Rajput and Houses of the petitioner and the answering respondent are adjacent to each other and, therefore, the petitioner has tried to mislead the Hon'ble Court by filing false affidavit in this behalf for which the answering respondent reserves her right to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that all the relevant documents pertaining to the residence of the answering respondent in Mohalla Rajput are annexed with her application form and on the basis of exceptional merit, the answering respondent has been found to be more meritorious than the petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that all the relevant documents pertaining to the residence of the answering respondent in Mohalla Rajput are annexed with her application form and on the basis of exceptional merit, the answering respondent has been found to be more meritorious than the petitioner. The answering respondent has already submitted the certificate issued by the Numberdar/Chowkidar, Voter List of Mohalla Rajput, BPL Ration Card issued in favour of her family, which clearly demonstrate that the answering respondent is a resident of Mohalla Rajput and has been duly selected by the Selecting authority on the basis of her merit. The certificates have been duly issued by the concerned authorities. The documents annexed by the petitioners are her own creation and, therefore, are denied being false and incorrect." 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner along with other eligible candidates applied and participated for their selection against the post of Anganwadi Worker for Mohalla Rajput pursuant to Advertisement Notification issued in the year 2010. Therefore, respondent no.5 came to be selected/engaged against the post under reference. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has questioned her selection through the medium of instant petition. 8. The contention of the petitioner that respondent No.5 is not the resident of Mohalla Rajput, Village Londi, is not well founded. Admittedly, an inquiry was conducted by the Revenue Department, wherein it has been established that respondent No.5 is the resident of Mohalla Rajput, Village Londi, Tehsil Hiranagar. Copy of the report submitted by the Patwari Halqua, Londi on 08.08.2011 attested by the Tehsildar, Hiranagar is annexed as Annexure-R1 with the objections filed by respondent no.5. She has also annexed a copy of Ration Book as Annexure-R2, which would also substantiate that she is the resident of Mohalla Rajput, where she along with her family members is residing. 9. Respondent No.5 has been selected being more meritorious than petitioner. She has also annexed a copy of Ration Book as Annexure-R2, which would also substantiate that she is the resident of Mohalla Rajput, where she along with her family members is residing. 9. Respondent No.5 has been selected being more meritorious than petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner is more qualified than respondent No.5, but, the selection was to be made on the basis of parameters laid in the Scheme for selection/ engagement of Anganwadi Worker, in which, it has been provided that the candidates must be the residents of the Ward/Mohalla in which Anganwadi Centre is located and the minimum qualification is Matric, and Middle pass in case no Matriculate is available in the particular area. Respondent No.5 having been found to be more meritorious on the basis of her qualification as prescribed in the Advertisement Notification and performance in the interview than petitioner, therefore, she has rightly been selected by the official respondents. It is also forthcoming from the record that the official respondents after considering the documents and assessing the relative merit of the petitioner and other candidates on the basis of Govt. Order No.7-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010, which provided for weightage to the academic qualification and viva-voce,selected respondent No.5 on the basis of her overall higher merit. 10. In view of what is observed hereinabove, I find no merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CMA(s). 11. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.