HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Parmila Devi …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. S. C. Mansotra, Adv.
vs Director Social Welfare Department and .…. Respondent(s)
others Through: Ms. Pallvi Sharma, Adv. vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAGfor Nos. 1 to 4 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the selection of the respondent No. 5 as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center for Upper Bhagwah, who was selected vide select list dated 22.12.2005 and directing the official respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to select and appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center for Upper Bhagwah.
2. The petitioner has challenged the select list on the grounds that the official respondents have illegally selected the respondent No. 5 who had got married to a village, namely, Prem Nagar which falls about 30 kms away from the ward/village in question i.e. Upper Bhagwah in another Tehsil Thathri, but still she was retained by the official respondents in the select list. It is stated that the petitioner has permanently settled after her marriage in the said ward/village.
3. The petitioner claims to have submitted the objections against the select list published by the official respondents, whereby respondent No. 5 was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center Upper Bhagwah.
4. Respondent No. 3 has filed the response stating therein that the Advertisement Notification was issued on 17.02.2005 by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 5 was possessing higher merit as compared to the petitioner, who was less meritorious as such, she was not selected by the official respondents for the post in question. It is also averred that at the time of issuance of above advertisement, the respondent No. 5 was unmarried as mentioned in the application form and other related papers submitted by the respondent No. 5 for selection as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Upper Bhagwah.
5. After considering the applications submitted by all the participants, the select list was issued on 22.12.2005 whereas the marriage of respondent No. 5 was solemnized on 06.03.2006 regarding which a certificate issued by the Pandit has been placed on record.
6. Mr. S. C. Mansotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the respondent No. 5 has been married to a person who is residing in a village which is at least 30 kms away from the Anganwadi Center in question as such, the petitioner has a better claim vis a vis the respondent No.5 for engagement as Anganwari worker in Anganwadi Center Upper Bhagwah. Mr. Mansotra has further contended that the candidate must be permanent resident of the panchayat or ward/village where the Anganwadi Center is located.
7. Per contra, Ms. Pallvi Sharma, learned counsel appearing vice Mr.Ravinder Gupta, AAG for official respondents has vehemently argued that at the time when the respondent No. 5 applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker, she was the resident of the area where the Anganwadi Center Upper Bhagwah was located. Even if, she has solemnized marriage after the issuance of the select list, the same cannot have any effect on the selection of respondent No. 5.
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. The record depicts that the petitioner was residing at Village Bhagwah, VPO Bhagwah, Tehsil and District Doda at the time of submission of her application for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Center Upper Bhagwah. The requirement of the Advertisement was that the candidate must be resident of the area where the Anganwadi Center is located. It is not denied by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 was not residing at a place where the Anganwadi Center was located, at the time of submission of application by the respondent No.5.
10. The sole contention of the petitioner is that she has solemnized marriage as such, the candidate who is residing at a place where the Anganwadi Center is located has a better claim over a candidate who has married away from the Anganwadi Center. The contention of the petitioner has been taken note of by this Court only for the purpose of rejection because as per the advertisement the only requirement is that the candidate must be the resident of the area/village where the Anganwadi Center is located
Residency at the time of application is the sole criterion for selection as Anganwadi Worker; marital status post-selection does not disqualify a candidate.
Eligibility criteria for government positions must be met, and discrepancies in application and residency status can result in the cancellation of appointments.
Local residency requirements that create artificial discrimination violate the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India.
The court reinforced that administrative decisions regarding the appointment of Anganwadi Workers must be substantiated by clear evidence of residency, emphasizing the necessity for valid inquiries a....
Selection processes for public appointments must comply with eligibility criteria established by law, and candidates cannot claim preference unless explicitly provided for by applicable rules.
Preference must be given to destitute widows in employment as per government guidelines, overriding other qualifications.
Selection guidelines take precedence over advertisements in recruitment processes, especially in cases involving designated community preferences.
Guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Workers mandate that only Scheduled Tribe candidates from the designated area are eligible, superseding conflicting advertisements.
Engagement orders in public service can be revised when based on a mistake, particularly if misrepresentation affects eligibility.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.