Ashifa Khalid vs State Of J&K And Ors

Rajnesh Oswal, J

The petitioner through the medium of the present petition has impugned the engagement of respondent No. 6 as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Gujjar Basti Ward No. 1, Panchayat Halqa Bharat-B on the ground that respondent No. 6 is residing far away from the Centre and also has less marks and qualification than the petitioner. A prayer has also been made by the petitioner for directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to select and appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Gujjar Basti, Bharat-B.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have responded to the writ petition by submitting that both the petitioner and respondent No. 6 applied for the engagement as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre for Lower Gujjar Basti, Ward No. 1, Bharat-B. As per the selection criteria, respondent No. 6 has secured 44.80 points, whereas the petitioner has secured 41.40 points. It is further stated that the respondent No. 6 is the resident of Ward No. 1 Panchayat Halqa Bharat-B, which is duly substantiated by the certificate dated 05.05.2008 issued by the Block Development Officer.

Respondent No. 6 has also filed the counter affidavit, thereby reiterating the stand of the official respondents.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

The engagement of respondent No. 6 has been impugned on two grounds i.e. that the petitioner is having higher marks and qualification and that respondent No. 6 is not a resident of Ward No. 1 Panchayat Halqa Bharat-B. So far as the merit is concerned, the record depicts that the petitioner has secured 41.40 points, whereas respondent No. 6 has secured 44.80 points. In view of this, there is no force in the contention raised by the petitioner that she is more meritorious than respondent No. 6. The other contention raised by the petitioner is in respect of the residence of respondent No. 6. A perusal of the application form submitted by respondent No. 6 reveals that she has mentioned her residence as Ward No. 1, Bharat-B. A further perusal of the record reveals that the Block Development Officer concerned has issued a certificate dated 05.05.2008, wherein respondent No. 6 has been shown as resident of Bharat-B.

The official respondents in their reply have submitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner concerned is seized of the same but without getting any adjudication in respect of the representation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

In view of the above, this Court does not deem it proper to show any indulgence, more particularly when the Deputy Commissioner concerned is already seized of the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off by directing the Deputy Commissioner concerned to decide the representation filed by the petitioner without disturbing the status of respondent No. 6 and the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall afford due opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 6, in case any adverse order is required to be issued against her.

Disposed off.