Advocates:
['M/S ALTAF HAQANI', '', 'SHAKIR HAQANI', 'SHEIKH FEROZ DY AG', '', 'SAMEER AHMAD DAR', 'H A LONE', 'F A BHAT', 'HASHIM HUSSAIN', 'SHEIKH MANZOOR', 'T A LONE', 'S A GEELANI']

SWP No.594/2012 1 | P a g e

S. No.168

After Notice Matters

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 28.09.2021

Pronounced on:11.10.2021

SWP No.594/2012

Shafia Samad

…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr.Shakir Haqani, Advocate

vice Mr.Altaf Haqani, Sr Advocate

V/s

State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors.

….. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Feroz, Dy.AG

Mr. F.A.Bhat, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

11.10.2021

1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated

03.03.2012

passed

by

respondent

No.3-Dy.Commissioner

Baramulla, whereby, the appeal filed by respondent No.8, calling

in question the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker

in Mukdam Mohalla Matipora Rohama, has been decided. The

direction restraining the respondents from causing interference into

the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker has also

been sought.

2. The facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties are that, in the

year 2010, an Advertisement Notice was issued by respondent

No.7 inviting applications from the eligible female candidates for

their engagement as Anganwadi Workers at various Anganwadi

SARVEEDA NISSAR

2021.10.11 14:29

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

SWP No.594/2012 2 | P a g e

Centres to be set in Mohallas of the Villages/Hamlets of Block

Rohama. One of the locations for which Anganwadi Centre had

been sanctioned and engagement of an eligible Anganwadi Worker

was to be made was Mukdam Mohalla of Village Matipora.

3. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement Notice,

petitioner as well as respondent No.8 offered their candidature for

the position of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Anganwadi

Centre, Mukdam Mohalla. After undertaking the process of

selection, the petitioner was found to have secured the highest

merit whereas the respondent No.8 found her place at the bottom

of the merit list. Accordingly, tentative select list of the honorary

Anganwadi Workers was issued by the respondents and the

petitioner found her way in the said select list.

4. It seems that respondent No.8 made a complaint before the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Sopore, calling into question the eligibility

of the petitioner, as, according to the said respondent, the petitioner

was not residing in Mukdam Mohalla of Village Matipora and, as

such, as per the guidelines of the scheme she was not eligible to be

engaged as Anganwadi Worker for the Centre which was located

in Mukdam Mohalla.

5. The complaint came to be inquired into by the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Sopore and vide his report dated 27.08.2011, he came

to the conclusion that Matipora is a village of Rohama and

Mukdam Mohalla is the Sub Mohalla of Matipora. It was further

observed that Matipora, being a habitation of village Rohama,

should be considered as a single unit. A direction was issued to

CDPO Rohama to proceed strictly with the guidelines of ICDS

Scheme. In light of the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Sopore, respondent No.7-Child Development Project Officer,

ICDS Rohama issued engagement order dated 05.09.2011 in

favour of the petitioner, whereby, she was engaged as Anganwadi

Worker for Anganwadi Centre Mukdam Mohalla.

6. It appears that the aforesaid engagement order was challenged by

respondent No.8 by way of an appeal before the Dy.Commissioner

SARVEEDA NISSAR

2021.10.11 14:29

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

SWP No.594/2012