Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 159 (JK)

Shagufta Naz v. State Of J&K

2020-03-11

GITA MITTAL, RAJESH BINDAL

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed dismissal of SWP No. 40/2016 by the order dated 1 st April, 2016. 2. It appears that the respondents had invited applications by a Notification No 03 of 2014 dated 6 th February, 2015 for the post of Female Multipurpose Health Worker (FMPHW for short hereafter) on contractual basis in Sub-Centre Chungan, Block Mendhar under the National Health Mission. 3. It is not disputed that essential requirement for selection to the said post was that the candidate should be a local resident. Premised on the material submitted by her, the appellant was originally selected for appointment for the said post. 4. The private respondent No. 5 had objected to the selection of the appellant on the ground that she stood married to a resident of village Uchhad, which is admittedly 15 Kms away from the Sub Centre Chungan. It was therefore submitted that the appellant could not have been validly appointed. 5. In order to settle this factual controversy with regard to the place of residence of the appellant, the District Development Commissioner, Poonch, had constituted a Committee of the Chief Medical Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Rev.) to jointly examine the matter. 6. This Committee conducted the verification of the requisite documents and material. The Committee concluded that the appellant had misrepresented her residential status in order to secure the appointment to the post in question. It had been found that the appellant had married one Makhmood Naz of village Uchhad, which was actually 15 Kms away from the village Chungan. The Committee had also verified that the name of appellant had ever been mentioned in the voter list of the polling station Uchhad. 7. In order to arrive at the above conclusions, the Committee had relied upon the report of the Block Level Officer, Chungan dated 6 th February, 2016. This report had also noted that the name of the appellant, which stood at Sr. No. 523 of electoral rolls of village Chungan, stood deleted and that no addition/subtraction had been made thereafter. 8. In this background, the Chief Medical Officer, Poonch-respondent No. 4 herein had issued the order dated 28 th December, 2015 cancelling the engagement of the appellant to the post in question. No. 523 of electoral rolls of village Chungan, stood deleted and that no addition/subtraction had been made thereafter. 8. In this background, the Chief Medical Officer, Poonch-respondent No. 4 herein had issued the order dated 28 th December, 2015 cancelling the engagement of the appellant to the post in question. This order notes that the District Development Commissioner, Poonch, who is also the Chairman of the District Health Society, Poonch, had given an opportunity of hearing to both the parties on the issue and that the appellant had admitted the fact that she stood married in village Uchhad. In this background, the order dated 28 th December, 2015 also held that the appellant was guilty of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts justifying her for cancellation of her engagement. 9. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the above factual verification conducted by the concerned authorities. The learned Single Judge has also found that the appellant had, as an afterthought and in order to create evidence that she was no longer residing in village Uchhad, made an application for deletion of her name from the voter list of village Uchhad after issuance of the notification dated 6 th February, 2015 inviting the application to the post in question. The learned Single Judge has agreed with the conclusion of the authorities concerned that the assertion of the appellant that she is residing with the parents despite her marriage, could not be accepted. In this background, the writ petition filed by the appellant assailing the cancellation of her appointment vide order dated 28 th December, 2015, was rejected. 10. Before us, the order of learned Single Judge stands assailed purely on the factual challenge premised on place of residence of the appellant, which is completely beyond the scope of challenge to an order passed in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 11. The authorities, who have examined the matter threadbare, conducted an inquiry and also given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It is only after a careful consideration of the entire relevant record that the authorities have concluded that the appellant was admittedly married in village Uchhad and residing there. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that name of the appellant stands deleted from the voter list of polling station Uchhad. 13. It is only after a careful consideration of the entire relevant record that the authorities have concluded that the appellant was admittedly married in village Uchhad and residing there. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that name of the appellant stands deleted from the voter list of polling station Uchhad. 13. We find that learned Single Judge and authorities concerned have noted this fact and concluded that she had got her name deleted therefrom after the issuance of the advertisement pertaining to the selection in question, for the sole purpose of fabricating the evidence to support her candidature. 14. We see no reason to disagree with the conclusions of the learned Single Judge. 15. This appeal is completely misconceived and is dismissed.