Minimum qualification for Anganwadi Helper must be met before considering preference for BPL candidates; engagement lacking this qualification is a nullity.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. This intra Court appeal arises out of an Order and Judgment dated 27^th of September, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (“the Writ Court”) in SWP No. 26/2012 titled “Mst. Mehmooda v. State of J&K and Ors.”, whereby the Writ Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.6 and quashed the Order dated 20^th of December, 2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, the Respondent No.3 herein, as also the Order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir dated 28^th of December, 2011.

2. The Respondent No.5, vide advertisement notification bearing No. DIPJK/9184 dated Nil, issued in the year 2010, invited applications for engagement of Anganwadi Helpers in 22 different Anganwadi Centers of Block Lar, which included the Anganwadi Centre Khawajabagh, Kondabal, Ganderbal, falling in revenue village Yangoora (B). The advertisement notification, inter alia, prescribed a minimum qualification of 8^th Pass for the post of Anganwadi Helper. It was also provided in the advertisement notification that in case no Middle Pass candidate was available, the candidate with lesser qualification was to be considered. The Appellant, as also the Respondent No.6 herein, responded to the advertisement notification. On the recommendations of the concerned Sarpanch and, having regard to the fact that the Respondent No.6 was a widow and belonged to a BPL family, she came to be engaged as Anganwadi Helper in terms of Order No. ICDS/ESTT-08/L171-73 dated 8^th of January, 2011.

3. The Appellant herein filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, challenging the selection and engagement of the Respondent No.6 as Anganwadi Helper in the Anganwadi Centre in question. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal of the Appellant herein and quashed the engagement of Respondent No.6 herein, with a direction to the official Respondents to re-advertise the said post of Anganwadi Helper.

4. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid direction to re-advertise the post, the Appellant filed a Revision Petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal. The Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir accepted the Revision Petition filed by the Appellant and set aside the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal to the extent of issuing fresh advertisement notification. This was done by the Divisional Commissioner vide Order dated 28^th of December, 2011. Both the aforesaid Orders; one passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal dated 20^th of December, 2011 and the other by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir dated 28^th of December, 2011, were called in question by the Respondent No.6 before the Writ Court through the medium of SWP No. 26/2012.

5. The Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.6 was contested by the official Respondents as well as the Appellant herein.

6. The Writ Court, after hearing the rival contentions of the parties and going through the material on record, came to the conclusion that the Respondent No.6, being a widow, belonging to the BPL category, fulfilled the eligibility criteria and, therefore, had been rightly engaged as Anganwadi Helper by the official Respondents. The Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal dated 20^th of December, 2011, which was slightly modified by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir vide Order dated 28^th of December, 2011, was found not well-founded and, resultantly, the Writ Petition was allowed and the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, as also the Order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, were quashed. The Writ Court also recorded a finding that the Appellant herein was not eligible.

7. It is this Order and Judgment passed by the learned Writ Court which is called in question by the Appellant herein, being the Respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition, before us in this appeal.

8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we find that in terms of Go