Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 51 (JK)

Suneeta Kumari v. State

2018-02-02

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Through the present writ petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:- (i) To set aside or quash the impugned order No.13-SWD of 2015 dated 22.04.2015 by issuing writ of mandamus; (ii) To prohibit respondents from making an order of disengagement of the petitioners by issuing writ of probation; & (iii) To release the monthly honorarium and regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 by issuing a writ of mandamus. 3. Petitioner No.1-Suneeta Kumari claims that she was temporarily appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre at Drubeel Proper purely on monthly honorarium basis as admissible under norms by the Child Development Project Officer, (I.C.D.S.) Inderwal vide order dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure-A at page 7), similarly petitioner No.2-Sahira Banoo claims that she was temporarily appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre at Gagrimarh purely on monthly honorarium basis as admissible under norms by the Child Development Project Officer, (I.C.D.S.) Inderwal vide order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure-A at page 8) and Petitioner No.3-Heena Banoo also claims that she was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre at Rahal Panchayat Inderwal-B purely on temporarily basis till the post is advertised and selection is made by the competent authority on monthly honorarium basis as admissible under norms by the Child Development Project Officer, (I.C.D.S.) Inderwal vide order dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure-A at page 9). 4. The petitioners claimed that they continued to work as such. After they have been performing the duties temporarily as above, it appears that the advertisement notice was issued which resulted in Child Development Project Officer, ICDS, Inderwal publishing a list of candidates, who had applied for the post of Anganwadi Workers in various Centres in Inderwal. At the same time on 22.04.2015, an order No.13-SMD of 2015 was passed by the Mission Director, ICDS J&K, which reads as follows:- “Government of Jammu and Kashmir STATE MISSION DIRECTORATE, ICDS, J&K Hajj House, 3rd Floor, Rail Head Jammu Subject: Termination of stop-gap/adhoc arrangements of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. O R D E R No. 13 SMD of 2015 DATED: 22.04.2015 In compliance to the directions issue by the Administrative Department conveyed vide No.SWD/ICDS/55/2015 dated 17.04.2015, all stop gap/adhoc arrangements of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers who have been made without established procedure are hereby terminated with immediate effect. O R D E R No. 13 SMD of 2015 DATED: 22.04.2015 In compliance to the directions issue by the Administrative Department conveyed vide No.SWD/ICDS/55/2015 dated 17.04.2015, all stop gap/adhoc arrangements of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers who have been made without established procedure are hereby terminated with immediate effect. The Drawing and Disbursing Officers shall not entertain any claims of wages of such engagements. The compliance report in this behalf shall be submitted to this Directorate within a week’s time along with the list of such disengaged persons.” 5. The writ petitioners have filed the present writ petition to quash Order No.13-SMD of 2015 dated 22.04.2015 stating that the termination order passed by the Mission Director is bad. Based on the pleadings of the petitioners, an interim order was passed on 30.05.2016 based on an earlier interim order passed by this Court on 01.03.2016 in MP No.01/2016 in SWP No.358/2016, which reads as follows:- “Meanwhile, subject to objections from the other side and till next date before the Bench, status quo, as on today, with respect to the present position of the petitioners, shall be maintained.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners pleads that by an order (Annexure-B) dated 22.04.2015, services of all the Anganwadi Workers are sought to be disturbed by the Mission Director whereas according to counsel for the petitioners, they are working on the basis of the orders (Annexure-A) passed by the Competent Authority/Child Development Project Officer, Inderwal on temporary basis on monthly honorarium. It is not illegal order but it is subject to the condition that as and when the post is advertised and selection is made by the Competent Authority, they can be engaged on temporary basis. This is evident from the engagement orders issued in respect of each of the petitioners and, therefore, makes it clear that the proceedings of the Mission Director is in relation to the appointments which are made on stop gap/adhoc arrangements without following established procedure as to whether the case of these petitioners will fall under established procedure or not should be clarified by the Child Development Project Officer, Inderwal in consultation with the Mission Director and proceed thereafter as per law. 7. It is also clear from the narration of the facts as pleaded by the petitioners as to when the advertisement is issued for the posts. 7. It is also clear from the narration of the facts as pleaded by the petitioners as to when the advertisement is issued for the posts. However, these temporary appointments will be valid till regular appointment is made and therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance if the selection process is initiated in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Their right will end when the selection is initiated and concluded as per law. 8. Resultantly, it leads to the following inference, namely, petitioners, who were appointed on temporary basis on monthly honorarium pending a proper advertisement to fill up the vacant posts can continue to do so. If their appointment has been made in accordance with established procedure by the Competent Authority, the Child Development Project Officer will consider the claim of the petitioners for continuation till the regular appointment is made in terms of the proceedings of the Mission Director. 9. Insofar as the advertisement is concerned, there can be no restraint because that has to be proceeded in accordance with law. In fact, the petitioners have not specifically challenged any selection process initiated and, therefore, the question of interceding the selection process by this Court does not arise, therefore, interim order, if any, restraining the department from proceeding with the advertisement notice, shall not be valid. 10. If the petitioners discharge their duties on temporary basis, on monthly honorarium for the period they have worked, they will be entitled to the honorarium without any default. 11. The rights of the petitioners can be considered by the Competent Authority preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. Writ petition alongwith connected MP stands disposed of as above.