Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 61 (JK)

Khalda Parveen v. State and others

2013-02-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2013
1. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court to quash selection of respondent No.5 against the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Mohalla Bassan, Ward No.6, Tehsil Haveli, Distt. Poonch and to select and appoint her against the said post on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. It is contended that official respondents have selected respondent No.5 illegally and with extraneous consideration and converted the merit of the petitioner into demerit. The petitioner is having 10+2 qualification with diploma in Software Technology. Her grievance is that said diploma has not been taken into consideration by the official respondents while assessing her merit. It is further contended that respondent No.5 is not a resident of hamlet whereas petitioner is resident of said hamlet and is entitled to selection against the said post. 3. Official respondents have filed reply stating therein that qualification for selection as Anganwadi Worker is matriculate and weightage has to be given to the viva-voce and academic qualification. In terms of Govt. Order No.7-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 read with order No. 10-SW of 2010 dated 19.01.2010, 85 points are to be awarded for matriculation qualification and 15 points for viva-voce. It is further contended that respondent No.5 secured 50.72 points and petitioner secured 47.58 points out of 100. 4. It is apt to reproduce para No.3 of the reply filed by official respondents:- “3. That according to the norms given in para No.3 sub section (B) of the approval of the cabinet Social Welfare Department vide Govt. Order No.7 SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 and corrigendum order No.10-SW of 2010 dated 19.01.2010, the academic qualification for the selection of Anganwari Worker in the Anganwari Centre is matriculation “weightage shall be given to viva voce and academic qualification as break up, i.e. matriculation=85 points vice-voce 15 points and pro rata basis as much the respondent no.5 is a matriculation candidate whose total merit points are 50.72 out 100 and hence got selected. The petitioner has secured only 47.58 out of 100 points. ……….” 5. Further, it is contended that petitioner is not a resident of Hamlet Mohalla Bassan, Shahpur, Panchayat Upper whereas respondent No.5 is resident of said Hamlet Mohalla as per the report submitted (Annexure-R2 and R-3 with the reply) 6. The petitioner has not questioned criteria laid down in terms of Government orders (supra). ……….” 5. Further, it is contended that petitioner is not a resident of Hamlet Mohalla Bassan, Shahpur, Panchayat Upper whereas respondent No.5 is resident of said Hamlet Mohalla as per the report submitted (Annexure-R2 and R-3 with the reply) 6. The petitioner has not questioned criteria laid down in terms of Government orders (supra). However, only grievance projected in the writ petition is that she was excluded for consideration on the ground that she is not a resident of said Hamlet. 7. In terms of order dated 26.09.2012, Deputy Commissioner, Poonch was directed to inquire into the matter with regard to the residence of respondent as well as petitioner and submit report within three weeks, who after conducting inquiry submitted his report and came to the conclusion that respondent No.5 is a resident of Ward No.6, Mohalla Bassan Shahpur Upper, and, petitioner is not a resident of said Ward/Hamlet. 8. Keeping in view the inquiry report made by Deputy Commissioner read with the reply filed by the official respondents and the fact that petitioner is lower in merit, I am of the considered view that petitioner has no case. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed along with connected CMA(s).