HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Aasia Jan – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K & OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C) No.3108/2019 c/w WP(C) No.406/2021
Decided on : 26-03-2025
(A) Government Order No. 07-SW of 2010 - Engagement of Anganwadi Workers - The petitioner challenged the engagement process for Anganwadi Workers, asserting her eligibility based on residential criteria. The court found that the engagement was based on a flawed understanding of the residential requirements as per the advertisement. The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to finalize the decision based on the Enquiry Committee's report. (Paras 1, 5, 14, 18)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized the need for adherence to procedural fairness and the importance of considering objections raised by candidates in selection processes. (Paras 10, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was engaged as an Anganwadi Worker but faced objections regarding her residential status from a competing candidate. The court noted that the engagement process was flawed due to a misunderstanding of the residential criteria.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to make a final decision based on the Enquiry Committee's report and ensure compliance with previous court orders.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the engagement process and the residential status of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the engagement process must comply with the established criteria and that the Deputy Commissioner must finalize the decision based on the Enquiry Committee's findings.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions to the Deputy Commissioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. By this common order, the above numbered two writ petitions filed by petitioner Aasia Jan are proposed to be disposed of.
2. The petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre at Lalgam (Manzipora) vide order dated CDPO/T/Estt/2015/714-15 dated 23.03.2015. By asserting that the respondent No.4 i.e. Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Tral Pulwama, has entertained the objections in respect of tentative selection list issued by the official respondents, the petitioner has filed writ petition bearing WP(C) No.3108/2019, praying therein that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to work on the position of Anganwadi Worker engaged in terms of order dated 23.03.2015.
3. In the aforesaid writ petition, the official respondents have filed their response stating therein that one post of Anganwadi Worker was sanctioned by the Government for its establishment in Manzimpora Lalgam during the expansion program 2014-15 and the said post was advertised on 25.08.2014 through print media and in response thereto, eight applications were received and Sarpanch of the area certified that the candidates belong to Lalgam Manzimpora. One candidate-Tahira Akhter was found to be non-local out of the candidates. It is further stated that one Shazia Nabi had filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.1686/2015 which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2015 and she has also filed a contempt petition which is pending consideration before this Court and the matter has been referred to Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama for ascertaining the actual residence of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner-Aasia Jan has filed another writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 406/2021, wherein she has impugned communication No. ADC/Tral/Gen/2020-21/3938-41 dated 30.01.2021 addressed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tral, to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Tral, whereby the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee have been communicated to the said respondent.
5. It is contended by the petitioner that the official respondents had had constituted a committee to enquire the genuineness of the engagement of the petitioner in hamlet Manzipora Lalgam Tral. The Enquiry Committee without any notice to the petitioner has taken a decision in derogation to the conditions incorporated in the advertisement notice read with the scheme formulated by the Government for engagement of Anganwadi Workers vide order No.07- SW of 2010 dated 10.10.2010. It is urged by the petitioner that the Committee has not reported the correct position as the Committee has restricted the zone of selection viz-a-viz Mohalla and not Hamlet, which is the zone of selection as per advertisement notice and the provisions of the scheme in vogue. It is further stated that the petitioner was engaged only when no objections were filed against the tentative selection list and the petitioner was surprised when after seven long years, the official respondents entertained the objections against her selection. It is also contended by the petitioner that no appeal in terms of Government Order No.07-SW of 2010 dated 18.10.2010 has been preferred against her selection but the private respondent Shazia Nabi, after a gap of more than two years, approached Additional District Magistrate for setting aside the selection of the petitioner but the said appeal also stands closed/dropped. It is further stated that the private respondent Shazia Nabi has questioned her selection on the ground that she is the resident of Mohalla Qazimpora and not the resident of approved location i.e. Manzipora whereas hamlet Manzipora consists of Manzipora, Qazimpora and Khalenderpora and the petitioner being the meritorious candidate and residence of the approved hamlet was selected.
6. The respondent No. 5 has filed response stating therein that a committee was constituted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tral, vide his office letter dated 10th March, 2020 only after the District P
The engagement of Anganwadi Workers must adhere to residential criteria as per the governing regulations, and procedural fairness must be maintained in selection processes.
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....
The court affirmed the importance of residency claims in Anganwadi Worker appointments, upholding the ADM's findings based on survey evidence.
The court emphasized the right to livelihood under Article 21, affirming that administrative decisions must consider valid evidence and cannot disregard established facts that support eligibility.
Writ of certiorari does not permit re-evaluation of evidence but ensures adherence to natural justice; findings of fact can only be overturned if shown to lack basis.
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 ruled that residency status is critical for eligibility as Anganwadi workers, reaffirming administrative decisions based on statutory qualifications must adhere to principles of fairness.
Point of Law : Anganwadi worker - Appellate Authority has not referred to even a single document or material that would even prima facie suggest that the petitioner was not residing in Mukdam Mohalla....
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.