Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 374 (JK)

Kawser Jan v. Social Welfare (State Government)

2023-08-09

JAVED IQBAL WANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution implores for the following reliefs: (I) Writ of Certiorari, for quashing the order passed by Respondent No. 2 dated 08-09-2015 passed in case titled as Mst. Rukhsana Jan Vs. State & Ors., whereunder the engagement/appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker has been set aside. (II) Writ of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to keep the selection/engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker intact pursuant to the engagement order bearing No. 03 CDPO of 2015 dated 06-04-2015 issued by Respondent No. 6. (III) Writ of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre Darpora-Naserpora and release the salary/honorarium of the petitioner regularly. 2. The reliefs aforesaid are being sought by the petitioner on the premise that an advertisement notice came to be issued and published on 1.9.2014 by respondent 6 inviting applications for filling up one post of Anganwari Worker at the newly sanctioned Anganwari Centre Darpora-Naserpora in village Naserpora. 3. It is being stated by the petitioner that she came to be married to one Manzoor Ahmad Dar, resident of Mohallah Herpora village Naserpora on 01.11.2013 and being a local candidate residing in her matrimonial home, applied for the position of Anganwari Worker. 4. It is being stated that four candidates including the petitioner herein were found to be eligible for the post in question and were called for interview on 9.3.2015 whereafter on the basis of marks obtained in 10th class examination coupled with the points secured in the said interview, the petitioner secured 44.53 points whereas the respondent 7 secured 44.27 points, and, as such, the petitioner was consequently selected as Anganwari Worker for the Anganwari Centre in question, which selection came to be notified in the local daily newspaper Greater Kashmir on 27.3.2015 providing therein a right to the non-selectees for filing objections, if any, within 10 days. 5. It is being stated that on account of her non-selection the respondent 7 filed objections against the selection of the petitioner, which objections came to be rejected by respondent 6 in terms of communication dated 6.4.2015 resulting into issuance of formal engagement order bearing no. 03 CDPO of 2015 dated 6.4.2015 by respondent 6 in favour of the petitioner, whereafter the petitioner joined and started discharging her duties as Anganwari Worker. 03 CDPO of 2015 dated 6.4.2015 by respondent 6 in favour of the petitioner, whereafter the petitioner joined and started discharging her duties as Anganwari Worker. 6. It is being next stated that aggrieved of selection and appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker, respondent 7 preferred an appeal before Deputy Commissioner Shopian, respondent 2 herein, alleging therein that the petitioner at the time of issuance of advertisement notice was unmarried and also is not present permanent resident of Darpora Naserpora. 7. Upon entertaining the appeal, the respondent 2 is stated to have ordered an enquiry into the matter by constituting a committee in terms of order dated 23.5.2015 for just disposal of the appeal, which committee is stated to have reported that the petitioner had been married prior to the issuance of the advertisement notice to one Manzoor Ahmad Dar on 1.11.2013 and ever since the petitioner has been residing with her husband being a resident of Herpora (Darpora) Naserpora, and that there is no Darpora in existence and in fact Darpora is a cluster of houses in Herpora village of the inhabitants with caste Dar. 8. It is being stated that respondent 2 Deputy Commissioner instead of relying on the Committee report decided the appeal in terms of order dated 8.9.2015 setting aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner directing the respondent 6 to issue formal order in favour of respondent 7 as Anganwari Worker. 9. The petitioner has assailed order dated 8.9.2015 on the grounds urged in the petition. 10. Objections to the petition have been filed by respondent 7 wherein it is being stated that the petitioner was not present resident of Darpora-Naserpora where the Anganwari Centre was established, but in fact has been resident of Bonpora of village Naserpora residing with her father namely Ali Mohammad Paul and was not married to Manzoor Ahmad Dar at the time of submission of application form wherein the cut of date in the advertisement notice had been fixed from 01.9.2014 to 14.10.2014. It is being further stated in the objection that in fact the petitioner manipulated and fabricated a Nikah Nama dated 01.11.2013 with said Manzoor Ahmad Dar when in fact the actual marriage between them had taken place on 21.11.2014 and it was in this view of the matter that the petitioner in the application form rightly mentioned her status as “unmarried” being the daughter of Ali Mohammad Paul. The said application form is stated to have been submitted by the petitioner on 20.9.2014 under her own handwriting. It is being further stated in the objections that the selection of the petitioner against the post in question was the outcome of arbitrary power exercised by the official respondents by granting extra points in the interview to the petitioner with mala fide intention to drop respondent 7, as otherwise the respondent 7 had more marks in the 10th class examination than the petitioner, having secured 231 marks out of 500 as against the petitioner who had secured 215 marks out the 500. It is being next stated that the respondent 2 decided the appeal filed by respondent 7 judiciously, rightly holding that the petitioner was not a resident of Darpora-Naserpora at the time of submitting her application form in spite of the report of the committee as the said committee had relied upon fabricated Nikah Nama manipulated by the petitioner about her marriage with Manzoor Ahmad Dar. It is lastly being stated in the objections that petitioner also produced an under-process PPRC certificate dated 1.9.2014 issued by the Tehsildar concerned and that the petitioner instead of questioning the impugned order of Deputy Commissioner, bypassed the Revisional forum and wrongly chose to approach this court through the medium of instant petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The moot point that is involved in the instant petition is as to whether the petitioner herein was rightly selected/appointed against the position of Anganwari Worker by the official respondents and consequently her selection and appointment was wrongly cancelled by the official respondents. It is an admitted fact that the official respondents notified the position of Anganwari Worker amongst others for the village of Naserpora in respect of Anganwari Centre located at Darpora-Naserpora. It is an admitted fact that the official respondents notified the position of Anganwari Worker amongst others for the village of Naserpora in respect of Anganwari Centre located at Darpora-Naserpora. The petitioner in her petition indisputably has stated to be resident of Mohalla Bonpora of village Naserpora prior to her marriage claimed to have been solemnized on 1.11.2013 with one Manzoor Ahmad Dar resident of Mohalla Herpora of village Naserpora. The petitioner admittedly came to be selected and appointed by the official respondents in terms of order dated 6.4.2015 reflecting the particulars of the petitioner herein as Kawsar Jan daughter of Ali Mohd Paul resident of Naserpora after having found the petitioner to have secured 44.55 points with 36.55 points for weightage out of 85 points for academic qualification of Matriculation and 8 points for viva-voce/interview out of 15 points, as against the respondent 7 herein who had secured 39.27 points out of 85% weightage for academic Matriculation qualification and 5 points out of 15 points for viva-voce interview totaling 44.27 points. 12. The record produced by the respondents pertaining to the selection in issue would reveal that the petitioner herein in the application form filled up for the position in question has mentioned her marital status as unmarried on the date of filling of the application form i.e. on 20.9.2014 reflecting therein her father’s name as Ali Mohd Paul, instead of name of her husband Manzoor Ahmad Dar. Perusal of the record also tends to show that the under-process permanent resident certificate issued by Naib Tehsildar Keegam on 1.9.2014 in favour of the petitioner reflects the parentage of the petitioner as Ali Mohd Paul. The aforesaid documents ex facie suggest that the petitioner on the date of filling up of the application form i.e. on 20.9.2014 as also on the date of obtaining under-process Permanent Resident Certificate dated 1.9.2014 had been unmarried. Besides the aforesaid position, the petitioner as per her own showing has been residing in Mohalla Bonpora of village Naserpora and not of Darpora Naserpora for which location the centre had been sanctioned and position of Anganwari Worker had to be filled up, whereas the respondent 7 herein in her application form has specifically reflected her residence at Darpora Naserpora besides reflecting her marital status as unmarried. 13. 13. In view of the aforesaid admitted position, the petitioner could not have been said to be eligible for the position in question being not belonging to the sanctioned hamlet namely Darpora Naserpora for which centre the position had to be filled up. Besides, the petitioner seemingly has not only in the instant petition but also during the inquiry conducted under the instructions of respondent 2 claimed to have got married on 1.11.2013 in Mohalla Herpora Darpora of village Darpora Naserpora contradicting her particulars provided in the application form filled up for the position in question. The respondent 2, therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances cannot be said to have committed any error or acted illegally while allowing the appeal filed by respondent 7 herein setting aside the selection/appointment of the petitioner and directing offering of the appointment to the respondent 7 herein for being a resident of hamlet Darpora Naserpora as against other two candidates, amongst whom the candidate Masooda Akhter had not appeared for the interview and the candidate Suby Yousf had secured 31.89 points only. 14. For what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Resultantly, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with no costs.