Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 589 (JK)

Naseem Akhter v. State of J&K

2018-08-02

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The controversy raised in these petitions is so inextricably connected with one another that it would not be possible to decide one without reference to the other and, therefore, all these petitions have been taken together for disposal. For convenience, the facts stated in SWP No. 2932/2013 which is latest in point of time, are alone being noticed. 2. In the year 2008, the respondents had issued an Advertisement Notification for making selection and engagement of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Bass Panchayat Halqa Hassote but the process of selection was subsequently abandoned. The post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Bass Panchayat Halqa Hassote, thereafter, was re-advertised in the year 2010. The eligible candidates, who had responded to the Advertisement Notification, were called and interviewed. The provisionally selected candidates for different Anganwari Centers including Anganwari Centre, Bass were asked to furnish their original documents for checking and verification. The petitioner was also provisionally selected as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Bass and, therefore, was called upon to submit her original documents. On scrutiny, the qualification certificate submitted by the petitioner was found to be fake. The certificate was purportedly issued by the Headmaster, Government High School, Banna Tehsil Mahore District Udhampur. When the matter was taken up by the respondents with the Headmaster of the concerned School for verification, the Headmaster furnished a report that the petitioner had never been a student of his School and was not on the rolls for any class right from 1st Primary to 10th standard. The respondents, thus, concluded that the petitioner had produced the fake and forged certificate of having qualified 8th class examination. It is the case of the respondents that no engagement letter was ever issued in favour of the petitioner nor any nutritional items etc., as claimed by the petitioner, were issued in her favour by respondent No. 4. 3. The stand of the petitioner in all these petitions, however, is that pursuant to the Advertisement Notification issued in the year 2010, she was not only provisionally selected, as is apparent from Annexure-A to the writ petition but her formal order of appointment was issued by respondent No. 4 vide his No CDPO/M/1145-48/10 Dated 12th August, 2010. 3. The stand of the petitioner in all these petitions, however, is that pursuant to the Advertisement Notification issued in the year 2010, she was not only provisionally selected, as is apparent from Annexure-A to the writ petition but her formal order of appointment was issued by respondent No. 4 vide his No CDPO/M/1145-48/10 Dated 12th August, 2010. The petitioner also claims that right from the date of her engagement and subsequent to her joining, she has been continuously working as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Bass Panchayat Halqa Hassote. It is claimed by the petitioner that it is because of inaction on the part of the respondents to release her honorarium and also nutritional items for the benefit of the children, she approached this Court by way of Writ Petition SWP No. 845/2012 and subsequently also filed SWP No. 1471/2012. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in all these petitions for the reasons referred to hereinbelow. 5. It is not in dispute that initially the selection process for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Bass Panchayat Halqa Hassote was set in motion in the year 2008 but the same was subsequently abandoned. No reasons, however, are forth coming from the pleadings. 6. Be that as it may, the second Notification was issued by the respondents in the year 2010. The petitioner claiming to be Middle pass and otherwise eligible, applied. She was considered, interviewed and formally placed in the provisional select list. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of her formal engagement order issued by respondent No. 4. However, the stand taken by the respondents in their objections is that it is true that the petitioner had responded to the Notification issued in the year 2010 and was also provisionally selected as Anganwari Worker in the Center in question but her selection was provisional and subject to verification of her testimonials. The qualification certificate submitted by the petitioner indicating that she had passed 8th Class examination from High School, Banna, was subjected to verification through the Headmaster of the concerned School. The Headmaster, however, reported that the petitioner had never been on the rolls of the School and had not studied there from Class 1st to 10th standard. The qualification certificate submitted by the petitioner indicating that she had passed 8th Class examination from High School, Banna, was subjected to verification through the Headmaster of the concerned School. The Headmaster, however, reported that the petitioner had never been on the rolls of the School and had not studied there from Class 1st to 10th standard. It is thus submitted that since the petitioner was not found to possess the minimum qualification of Middle pass and, therefore, no engagement letter was issued in her favour. It is specifically stated in the objections filed by the respondents that even the formal order of engagement relied upon by the petitioner is fake and has not been issued by the office of respondent No. 4. The stand of the respondents is, however, strongly controverted by the petitioner and it was insisted that the petitioner having been legitimately engaged should be permitted to continue in her engagement and held entitled to the honorarium and release of nutritional items for running the Anganwari Center in question. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, urged that the petitioner was never appointed or engaged as Anganwari Worker. During the course of verification, her qualification certificate was found to be fake and forged. Fresh Advertisement Notification was issued in the year 2012 in which respondent No. 5 was selected and given engagement. It is, thus, stated that it is respondent No. 5, who is performing her duties as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Center, Bass and, therefore, the petitioner has no claim against the aforesaid post nor are her petitions maintainable. 8. “Whether the qualification certificate produced by the petitioner is fake or not,” “whether the engagement letter issued in favour of the petitioner purportedly by respondent No. 4 has been actually issued by respondent No. 4 or not” are serious disputed questions of fact and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction is not a right Forum to adjudicate and decide. 9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that selection of the petitioner pursuant to Notification of the year 2010 was provisional and subject to verification of her testimonials. The respondents subjected the qualification certificate submitted by the petitioner to verification and found that the same had not been issued by the Institute which purported to have issued it. They were, thus, justified in denying the appointment to the petitioner. 10. The respondents subjected the qualification certificate submitted by the petitioner to verification and found that the same had not been issued by the Institute which purported to have issued it. They were, thus, justified in denying the appointment to the petitioner. 10. Needlessto say that a candidate figuring in the select list has no fundamental right to be appointed and the selected candidate may not be given the appointment by the employer for valid and justified reasons. The qualification certificate submitted by the petitioner was found to be forged is sufficient reason to decline appointment to the petitioner. Once the action of the respondents in not appointing/engaging the petitioner as Anganwari Worker is held to be just and proper, no direction can be issued to the respondents to release the arrears of honorarium or the supply of nutritional items etc. for their utilization in the Anganwari Center concerned. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, all the three petitions are found to be without merit and are, therefore, dismissed.