The court upheld the importance of residence requirements and merit-based selection in the engagement of Anganwari Workers.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 103 of the Constitution of the Jammu & Kashmir for the issuance of writ of (i) Certiorari, to quash the order of Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project Samba (respondent No. 4) No. CDPS/1101-03106, dated 20.04.2006 whereby respondent No. 5 has been engaged as an Anganwari Worker, Anganwari Centre Ward No. 3, Samba; (ii) Mandamus, directing the concerned respondents to engage the petitioner as such Anganwari Worker at the said Centre instead; and further directing an action against the concerned for the fraud and misrepresentation committed by respondent No. 5 in holding out as a resident of Ward No. 3, which to her knowledge was not a fact and securing a permanent resident certificate in her favour on that false representation and by other concerned in the acceptance of the same without verification or deliberately causing a lot of hardship, inconvenience, harassment and loss in terms of money and time to the petitioner and compensation to her.

2. In the petition, petitioner has averred that she being citizen of India and permanent resident of State of J&K is entitled to constitutional, statutory and legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India and that of State and the laws made thereunder. That by virtue of an Advertisement No. DIP/J-3665, dated 17.02.2005, applications were invited from eligible candidates for engagement as Anganwari Worker for various Anganwari Centres including Anganwari Centre Ward No. 3 Samba. That the necessary condition for eligibility as provided in the advertisement is that applicant “must be a permanent resident of J&K State and should belong to/permanently resident in the Panchayat Halqa or Ward (in the case of Towns/Cities) where Anganwari Centre is located, besides, of course, possession of minimum educational qualification of matriculation. That the petitioner fulfilling all the necessary eligibility conditions and being permanent resident of the State permanently residing in Ward No. 3 of Samba which needless to say is a town, where the Anganwari Centre for which she sought engagement as Anganwari Worker applied for the said engagement in accordance with the procedure and in compliance of the formalities laid down in the said advertisement. That the selection committee, respondent No. 3, considered the candidates for engagement as Anganwari Worker and selected respondent No. 5 for the said engagement for Anganwari Centre, Ward No. 3, Samba, pursuant to which, respondent No. 5 was engaged as Anganwari Worker for the said centre. That respondent No. 5 is not the resident of Samba and did not permanently or temporarily reside in the said township until of course she was married to Sh. Surinder Sethi who is resident of the said township but of Ward No. 3. That respondent No. 5 hailed from Punjab and was married in Ward No. 4 Samba, a few years back after the aforesaid advertisement, she manipulated a permanent resident certificate by misrepresentation showing her to be resident of Ward No. 3 by misrepresentation with a view to mislead the concerned authorities and making a false claim to engagement as Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre Ward No. 3 Samba. That the said PRC has been issued without verification or deliberately for illegally benefiting respondent No. 5 and the officer issuing the said certificate and all others concerned with the enquiry are accountable for the wrong they have committed and are liable for action, the selection committee without going into the question of her residence and her not being eligible for engagement as Anganwari Worker in the said Centre recommended her engagement for the said centre whereas respondent No.4 ordered her engagement accordingly. That Tehsildar Samba held enquiry and made a report to the Deputy Commissioner Samba stating that respondent No. 5 had secured engagement on the basis of a false document,