Rubina Akhter Vs State Th. Social Welfare and Ors.

One Anganwadi Center was sanctioned for Upper Nallah Panchayat Bharat-A Ward No. 5 and pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 4, the petitioner, respondent No. 6 and other candidates applied for engagement of Anganwadi worker for the abovementioned ward. The petitioner, while applying for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for above mentioned center, along with her application form

¶21

2

¶22

SWP No. 34/2009

¶23

submitted a certificate in respect of her residence being a resident of Ward No. 5, issued by respondent No. 5. Similarly, the respondent No. 6 also submitted a certificate in respect of her residence issued by respondent No. 5. The Child Development Project Officer (CDPO)-respondent No. 4 vide order dated 14.10.2008 engaged respondent No. 6, as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center Upper Nallah Bharath-A Ward No. 5, ICDS Project Doda, Gundana.

¶24

The petitioner, being aggrieved of order dated 14.10.2008, has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 14.10.2008 and for directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to select and appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center, Upper Nallah Panchayat Halqa Bharath-A, Ward No. 5.

¶25

It is urged by the petitioner that she along with her application had submitted the residence certificate issued by the respondent No. 5 certifying her to be the resident of Ward No. 5, but to the utter surprise of the petitioner, a select list was issued on 03.08.2008 whereby the respondent No. 6 was declared selected as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center, Upper Nallah Panchayat Bharath-A, Ward No. 5. The father of the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No. 3 on 06.10.2008, as the petitioner came to know that some false and fabricated report was obtained from the Lambardar Bharath, at the back of the petitioner, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was the resident of Ward No. 6. The said representation was not taken note of by the official respondents while issuing the impugned order. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner being more meritorious than the respondent

¶26

3

¶27

SWP No. 34/2009

¶28

No. 6 was entitled to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center, Upper Nallah Panchayat Bharath-A, Ward No. 5, more particularly when she was the resident of Ward No. 5 and on the basis of a fabricated report manipulated by respondent No. 6, the petitioner was ousted and in turn respondent No. 6 was selected.

¶29

The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed the response stating therein that as per certificate issued by the Lambardar Bharath and verification report of the Block Development Officer (BDO), Gundana, the petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 6, Lower Nallah. It is further submitted that the candidature of the petitioner for engagement as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center, Upper Nallah Panchayat Bharat-A, Ward No. 5 was entertained only as she had shown herself to be the resident of Ward No. 5 but on verification of the residential status of the candidate, the BDO Gundana issued the verification report wherein it was stated that the petitioner actually was the resident of Ward No. 6 as verified by the Lambardar and Chowkidar. The Lambardar and Chowkidar on 23.09.2008 had also reported that the petitioner was the resident of Ward No. 6 Lower Nallah and the respondent No. 6 was the actual resident of Upper Nallah Panchayat Bharath-A, Ward No. 5.

¶30

Respondent No. 6 has also filed the response and has objected the claim of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner, in fact, is a resident of Panchayat Halqa Bharath-A Lower Nallah and not of Upper Nallah and further the certificate issued by the Lambardar in respect of the residence of the petitioner of Ward No. 5 was factually incorrect.

¶31

4

¶32

SWP No. 34/2009

¶33

Supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner to demonstrate that the District Programme Officer ICDS Doda had sought clarification from the respondent No. 4 as he had received a complaint regarding the selection of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center, Upper Nallah Panchayat Bharat-A, Ward No. 5 that the candidate figuring at serial No. 3 of the merit list, had been selected by ignoring the meritorious candidate.

¶34

An application has also been filed by the respondent No. 6 for placing on record certain documents to demonstrate that the petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 6. The documents sought to be relied upon by the respondent No. 6 is the voter list for the year 2011 and the order dated 30.07.2024 , issued by the Directorate of Mission Poshan .

¶35

Ms. Anandita Thakur, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. RKS Thakur, Advocate representing petitioner has vehemently argued that at the back of the petitioner, the certificate annexed with the application form certifying the petitioner as resident of Ward No. 5, was ignored by taking into consideration some report prepared by the BDO on the basis of the report submitted by the Lambardar, clandestinely. It is contended by her that the petitioner could not have been denied the engagement by rejecting her candidature on the ground of being not resident of Ward No. 5, on the basis of a report regarding which the petitioner was never made aware of. 9. Mr. Jagmeet Kour, learned counsel representing official respondents has defended the order of engagement of respondent No. 6 on the ground that after the verifications in respect of residences of the candidates were

¶36

5

¶37

SWP No. 34/2009

¶38

conducted, the BDO submitted a report that the petitioner was not the resident of Ward No. 5 but Ward No. 6 Bharath-A, Lower Nallah.

¶39

Mr. Karman Singh Johal, learned counsel representing respondent No. 6 has vehemently argued that the petitioner has no case at all as she is not the resident of Ward No. 5 for which the advertisement was issued for the

¶40

purpose of engaging Anganwadi Worker. He has submitted that the official respondent No. 4 has issued the order of engagement after the concerned BDO Gundana submitted the report with regard to the residence of the petitioner and as the petitioner was not resident of Ward No. 5, therefore, her candidature was not considered for engagement as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center, Upper Nallah Panchayat Bharath-A, Ward No. 5.

¶41

¶42

Heard and perused the record.

¶43

The whole controversy in the present writ petition hinges around the factum of the residential status of the petitioner, who claims to be the resident of Ward No. 5, which is duly substantiated by the certificate issued by the BDO concerned annexed by the petitioner with her application form for engagement as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center, Upper Nallah Panchayat Bharath-A, Ward No. 5. This is a fact that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, while rejecting her candidature only on the ground that she was not the resident of Ward No. 5 and that too when the petitioner had annexed the certificate issued by the BDO Gundana certifying the petitioner to be the resident of Ward No. 5. This is also evident that the official respondents did not consider the candidature of the petitioner for engagement as Anganwadi

¶44

6

¶45

Worker in Anganwadi Center, Upper Nallah Panchayat Bharath-A, Ward No. 5, even after she was interviewed along with other candidates, on the ground that she was not the resident of Ward No. 5 by placing reliance upon the report submitted by the BDO, who in turn relied upon the report submitted by the Lambardar.

¶46

Mr. Johal tried to dispute the residential status of the petitioner, while placing reliance on the voter list of 2011, whereas the fact remains that the selection in question is of the year 2008 and as such, the documents sought to be relied upon by Mr. Johal cannot form basis for the purpose of disputing the residential status of the petitioner in the year, 2008.

¶47

Whether the petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 5 or 6 is a disputed question of fact, which in the opinion of this Court cannot be determined by this court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. While this writ petition was pending before this Court, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir issued an order No. 07 SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 whereby the remedy of appeal has been provided to the candidates to redress the grievances against the selection of Anganwadi Worker/Helper. The Deputy Commissioner concerned is the appellate authority in terms of the Government order dated 18.01.2010 (supra).

¶48

As this Court has been confronted with the disputed question of fact, which this Court is not in a position to determine, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Doda to hold an enquiry with regard to the residential status of the petitioner as on the date of advertisement i.e. as on 11.04.2008 and submit the same to the CDPOrespondent No. 4 herein within a period of three months from the date a

¶49

7

¶50

SWP No. 34/2009

¶51

copy of this order is made available to respondent No. 4. The petitioner, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 shall render all possible assistance to the Deputy Commissioner, Doda to ensure that the enquiry as mentioned above is commenced and completed within the aforesaid period. In the event, any of the parties does not render assistance to the Deputy Commissioner, Doda in completion of enquiry and seek unnecessary adjournments, he shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and may also impose costs on the party at fault. In the event, the petitioner is found to be the resident of Ward No. 5 at the time of issuance of advertisement, the respondent No. 4 shall issue engagement order in

¶52

favour of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker.

¶53

Disposed of.

¶54

(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE

¶55

Jammu 08.10.2024 Rakesh

¶56

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

¶57

Rakesh Kumar 2024.10.15 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rubina Akhter v. State Th. Social Welfare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubina Akhter v. State Th. Social Welfare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bashir Ahmed Vs U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others

Mohd Shabir and Others Vs Ut of J and K Th Ssp Poonch and Another

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Khadam Hussain and Ors.

Priya Devi and Another Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary to Government Home Department Jammu and Others

Charanjit Kumar and Anr. Vs Poonam and Ors.

Shabir Ahmad Naik Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (Home)