Halima Akhter vs State Of J&K And Ors

Thakur, J

1) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.05.2019 passed in SWP No.919/2016.

2) Briefly stated the material facts are as under:

i) A selection process was initiated by the official respondents for engagement of Anganwadi Workers for a number of Anganwadi Centres including

seven for Panchayat Halqa Bagna. The locations that were identified for the said Panchayat Halqa were at Qazigund, Reshwari, Niloosa, Noorkah,

Chechipora, Bijamber and Bagna Upper. As per Advertisement Notice, an applicant/candidate ought to have been the resident of Panchayat Halqa or

ward (in the case of towns/cities) where the Anganwadi Centre is located. Both the appellant, Halima Akhter and private respondent No.6,

Shamshada Bano, claim that they applied for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre, Reshwari.

ii) A merit panel was prepared by the official respondents in which one Shahnaza Bano is shown to have secured 36.22 marks and respondent No.6,

Shamshada Bano, secured 36.12 marks whereas Halima Akhter, appellant herein, secured 34.89 marks. Shahnaza Bano was selected as Anganwadi

Worker for Anganwadi Centre, Niloosa and the appellant, Halima Akhter, for Anganwadi Centre, Reshwari.

iii) SWP No.133/2008:

Being aggrieved of the selection process, the respondent No.6, Shamshada Bano, preferred SWP No.133/2008 which came to be disposed of 30 of

July, 2009 with a direction to the Director, Social Welfare to hold an enquiry with regard to the pleas raised by the petitioner therein (respondent No.6

herein).

iv) SWP No.771/2010:

The said enquiry was conducted which again came to be challenged by respondent No.6 in SWP No.771/2010. The said writ petition, in which

respondent No.6 had challenged, inter alia, finding of the enquiry officer on various grounds, was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated

04.02.2015 with a direction to the official respondents to conduct fresh enquiry in the matter.

v) Enquiry Report dated 18th of April, 2016:

Pursuant to the direction passed in SWP No.771/2010, an enquiry was by Deputy Director (ICDS) J&K who held respondent No.6, Shamshada Bano,

to be eligible for appointment instead of the appellant herein on account of her merit as she had secured 36.12 marks as against 34.89 marks secured

by the appellant. The enquiry officer held that the respondent No.6 had applied for Anganwadi Centre, Reshwari and that the application form of

respondent No.6 had been mutilated and instead of Reshwari was written Naveedabad. It was held that had the respondent No.6 applied for

Anganwadi Centre, Naveedabad, then her form should have been rejected out rightly on the ground that there was no Anganwadi Centre sanctioned

for Naveedabad and instead of rejecting her form, she had been shown to have applied for Anganwadi Centre, Niloosa. The enquiry officer also held

that the respondent No.6 had been deprived of her genuine claim as she had applied for Anganwadi Centre, Reshwari and had more merit than the

appellant. The State Mission Director, on a perusal of the enquiry report, also satisfied himself that there was mutilation on the application form

submitted by respondent No.6. It was also determined by him that both the appellant and respondent No.6 were residents of Niloosa of District

Baramulla and that both were eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Centre, Reshwari and hence based upon the

merit of the respondent No.6, the State Mission Director, pursuant to order dated 18.04.2016, ordered her appointment upon cancellation of

appointment made in favour of the appellant by virtue of order dated 22nd January, 2008.

vi) Order dated 18.04.2016 came to be challenged by the appellant before the Writ Court, who, by virtue of judgment and order dated 28th of May,

2019, dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the State Mission Director (ICDS), J&K, hence the instant

appeal.

3) Counsel for the appellant urged that the view expressed by the Writ Court was not sustainable in law, inasmuch as it had failed to appreciate that

the private respondent No.6 was not at all eligible for appointment as she belong to a place other than Reshwari where the appointment was

envisaged. It was urged that the private respondent No.6 was a resident of Niloosa and had applied for appointment for the centre located at Niloosa.

Reliance was placed upon application form on record (with tampering) to show that the private respondent had, in fact, applied for Anganwadi Centre,

Naveedabad.

4) Heard counsel for the parties.

5) On a bare perusal of the application form annexed with the Letters Patent Appeal, it can be seen that Naveedabad has been written after cutting

the word “Reshwariâ€. Admittedly, there was no centre advertised for Naveedabad and the centers were advertised only at Qazigund, Reshwari,

Niloosa, Noorkah, Chechipora, Bijamber and Bagna Upper. There was no occasion for the private respondent No.6 to apply for an Anganwadi Centre

which was never advertised. The enquiry officer, therefore, appears to have rightly concluded that had the respondent No.6 applied for Anganwadi

Centre, Naveedabad, then her application form should have been out rightly rejected instead of showing her to have applied for Anganwadi Centre,

Niloosa. Although counsel for the appellant tried to show that the private respondent No.6 was not, in fact, a resident of Reshwari yet according to the

report of the enquiry officer, both the candidates i.e. appellant as also the private respondent, were residents of Niloosa and could have applied for

Reshwari which fall in the same Panchayat Halqa.

6) From the documents on record, it can, thus, be presumed that the tampering on the application form of the private respondent No.6 could have

benefitted none other than the appellant herein, which, in fact, resulted in her appointment in the year 2008.

7) Having heard counsel for the parties, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one taken by the Writ Court. The

appeal is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.