Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 471 (JK)

Sharifa Bano v. State & Ors.

2016-09-23

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition is of the year 2006. 2. There was no representation on behalf of petitioner on last date of hearing as also on the dates of hearing there before. Today also, nobody appears on behalf of petitioner. 3. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows-- “Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the selection of Respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 viz-a-viz petitioner and further issuing a writ of mandamus mandating directing the respondent to consider the petitioner for selection against the vacancies available.” 4. Petitioner, it is stated, applied for the post of Anganwari Worker pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 17.02.2005 issued by the Directorate of Social Welfare Jammu. The select list which was published on 30.01.2006 indicates that one Parveen Akhtar – respondent No. 7 has been selected as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Center Haveli and she does not belong to the said Mohalla Haveli whereas the petitioner is the eligible person. 5. It is further alleged that private respondent Nos. 8 and 9 have been selected contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the Social Welfare Department. 6. In paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition, details of the marks obtained by the petitioner and respondent No. 9 in the Matriculation examination is being pointed out to state that private respondent No. 9 is not entitled for selection. Similarly in Paragraph No. 7, the candidature of private respondent No. 8 – Farida Bano is being assailed stating that she has no merit as compared to the petitioner. 7. On this factual dispute, the writ petition is pursued stating that the selection of these persons should be quashed and petitioner should be appointed. 8. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have filed objections denying the facts. Private respondent No. 7 has also filed objections seriously disputing the allegations made. 9. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to go into the factual disputes of this case and adjudicate the rival claims as to who is meritorious among the selected candidates and whether the claim of the petitioner is justified. At best, it is for the competent Authority to decide if there is a grievance expressed by the petitioner. 9. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to go into the factual disputes of this case and adjudicate the rival claims as to who is meritorious among the selected candidates and whether the claim of the petitioner is justified. At best, it is for the competent Authority to decide if there is a grievance expressed by the petitioner. The petitioner apparently has not submitted any representation expressing her grievance and has approached this court directly. 10. Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. If there is a grievance and that has been made to the Competent Authority, that authority has to first decide the issue. It is only thereafter, there is scope for other remedies. 11. In this view of the matter, I am declining the relief as sought for giving liberty to petitioner to express his grievance before the Competent Authority for consideration of her case on merits. Principles of natural justice to be observed if any action adverse to the private respondents is contemplated. 12. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.