Brijma Devi vs State of J&K & ors

Sindhu Sharma, J

The Child Development Project Officer, Thathri invited applications for the Post of Anganwari Workers/Helpers on honorarium basis for the Anganwari Centers in various Panchayats Hamlets of ICDS Project Thathri, District Doda. Amongst the various Anganwari Centres, Anganwari Centre SC Basti Chariya was also advertised in Panchayat Kandote, Mohalla Chariya SC Basti.

The petitioner along with other eligible candidates applied for the post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre, Chariya SC Basti in terms of the Advertisement Notice dated 19.11.2013. The respondent No. 6 had also applied for the same post and the provisional select list for the post of Anganwari Workers was issued. After issuance of the proposed select list, the objections from the public to the provisional select list were invited.

The respondent No. 6 filed her objections to the proposed select list on the ground that the petitioner is not the resident of the Ward No. 1 SC Basti Chariya. The respondent No. 6 aggrieved of the proposed select list approached this Court by filing a writ petition i.e., SWP No. 3204/2014. This writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to accord consideration to the objections filed by the petitioner.

In compliance to the directions of this Court, the petitioner and respondent No. 6 were called by the then CDPO (Additional Charge Bhagwa), who submitted the report which transpired that the petitioner was not a resident of Ward No. 1 SC Basti Chariya.

The petitioner is aggrieved of the selection of respondent No. 6 and her non-selection on the ground that she is more meritorious as also eligible for the consideration for the selection. The contention of the petitioner that the Sarpanch and the Panches of the inhabitant had served a resolution to the official respondents that the respondent No. 6 had married outside the Panchayat and the petitioner was only eligible candidate to be appointed for the post.

The petitioner was not resident of SC Basti Chariya Mohalla and accordingly, selected respondent No. 6 to the post of Anganwari Worker. The petitioner is aggrieved of selection of respondent No. 6 as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre SC Basti Chariya Mohalla dated 29.05.2015 along with the order of consideration dated 28.05.2015 passed by the Selection Committee, rejecting the proposed selection of the petitioner and recommending the selection of respondent No. 6 along with the report of Child Development Project Officer, Bhagwah (Additional Charge of ICDS Project, Thathri).

The contention of the petitioner is that she was most eligible candidate having secured 49.93 marks whereas respondent No. 6 had only secured 48.4 marks. In the selection process, there was no stipulated condition that the candidate must be a resident of same ward where the Centre is located. The petitioner and respondent No. 6 are both residents of Hamlet Mora/Mohalla where the Anganwari Centre is located i.e., Chariya SC Basti, therefore, the petitioner was also eligible as per the conditions contained in advertisement notice for being selected to the post.

It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that Child Development Project Officer, Bhagwah (Additional Charge of CDPO Thathri) was biased and for extraneous reasons has given the report in favour of respondent No. 6. The consideration order has also given a detailed report regarding the fact that Sanjeeta Devi is a resident of Ward No. 1 Anganwari Centre SC Basti, whereas the petitioner is residing in Ward No. 2, Lower Chariya where the present Anganwari Worker is already working. It is in this regard submitted that the respondents have for extraneous consideration rejected the proposed selection of the petitioner and have recommended the selection of respondent No. 6 as Anganwari Worker in Anganiwari Centre, Ward No. 1 Upper Chariya.

Notice was issued in this petition on 23.07.2015 and was admitted on 13.10.2015.

Objections stand filed by the official respondents wherein it is submitted that none of the legal, constitutional or fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed or violated. It is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner belongs to another Ward / Hamlet i.e. lower Chariya, whereas the selected candidate i.e. respondent No. 6 is resident of Ward No. 1 i.e. S.C. Basti Upper Chariya. Two Anganwadi Centres were opened in ward Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Upper Chariya and lower Chariya in the year 2005, however, due to promotion of Anganwadi Worker in ward No.1 SC Basti Chariya, a vacancy of Anganwadi worker was fallen vacant, against which the petitioner though applied but was found in eligible to be considered being the resident of ward No. 2 i.e. lower Chariya and the petitioner does not fall in the population survey record of Anganwadi Centre S.C. Basti Chariya as per the electoral roll.

The respondents have also submitted that after issuance of proposed select list, objections from the general public within 10 days were invited. Respondent No. 6 filed her objections as regards the residence claim of the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner is resident of ward No. 2 i.e. lower Chariya. They further submit that respondent No. 6 approached before this Court by way of SWP No. 3240/2014 which was disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to consider the objections filed by respondent No. 6 and, in case of necessity, both the parties to be heard and while complying the directions passed by this Court, the petitioner & respondent No. 6 were called and they were heard and their objections were also considered by the CDPO ( Addl. Charge) Bhagwha. Thereafter, a report was submitted after taking into consideration the survey report of ward No. 1 S.C. Basti Chariya and as a result thereof, it was found that the petitioner is not resident of ward No. 1 SC Basti Chariya, as such, she was found not entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker in the said Hamlet.

Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 6 in which she has submitted that she is highly qualified having passed Graduation i.e. Three Years Degree (General) Course, B.A. Part - III in 2nd Division from University of Jammu in Session Annual - 2009 and Post Graduation i.e., Master of Arts (M.A.) in Hindi from IGNOU by securing 641 marks out of 1100 with 58.27% marks whereas the petitioner is 10+2 pass only and the answering respondent has obtained highest percentage of Marks in Matric i.e. 240 marks out of 500 marks whereas the petitioner has obtained less marks than the answering respondent i.e. 231 marks only out of 500 in Matric, which is the basic and minimum qualification prescribed for appointment of Anganwari Worker (AWW) as per the Advertisement Notification.

The dispute regarding selection to the post of Anganwari Worker in Ward No. 1 Chariya SC Basti is only with regard to the residence of the petitioner as well as respondent No.6. The report issued by the Block Development Officer, Thathri also certifies to the same extent. This has given rise to the disputed question of fact with regard to the residence of the petitioner which can only be settled by the designated authority.

The Government order No. 07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 provides for appeals, which reads as under:

“Appeal:

Wherever anybody feels aggrieved with the selection of Anganwadi Worker/Helper or with the mode and manner of selection of the Hamlet for setting up of Anganwadi Centre, an appeal shall be preferred to the Deputy Commissioner concerned within 30 days from the date of selection of Anganwadi Worker/Helper or the date of identification of location of the Hamlet for the setting up of Anganwadi Centre. The Deputy Commissioner concerned shall dispose of the appeal within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the complaint after conducting an enquiry whatever may be deemed necessary.”

Since the reports of the Block Development Officer, and Tehsildar, are at variance, therefore, this petition is disposed of at this stage itself, by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Doda, who is otherwise also an appellate authority, to decide the question with regard to the residence of petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides and by passing a speaking order in this regard.

16.Disposed of accordingly.