Rehana Ali vs State Of J&K & Others

Sanjay Dhar, J

1) Petitioner has challenged selection list of Anganwadi Workers to the extent of selection of respondent No.5 and has also called into question order dated 29.02.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, whereby, the officer, after holding enquiry with regard to claim of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the same is without any merit.

2) Vide the impugned selection list that was prepared pursuant to advertisement notice (annexure-P4 to the writ petition), respondent No.5 has been selected as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Manz Armullah. According to the petitioner, she is a resident of Ward No.10 Manz Armullah where the Anganwadi Centre is located but respondent No.5 does not belong to the said habitation. The petitioner is stated to have filed objections to the impugned selection list but the same were not considered, which compelled her to file a civil suit. The petitioner after withdrawing the civil suit, it appears filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.1104/2011 before this Court challenging the selection of respondent No.5. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30th May, 2011, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, respondent No.6, to enquire into the matter so as to arrive at a logical conclusion with regard to appointment of respondent No.5. The Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, was also directed to give reasonable opportunity to respondent No.5 to put across her case.

3) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 29.02.2012, whereby he has, after holding an enquiry, come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner.

4) Petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No.5 and the decision of respondent No.6-Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, on the grounds that respondent No.5 is not eligible for being appointed to the Anganwadi Centre in question as she does not belong to the said habitation and that respondent No.6, despite there being material on record to show that respondent No.5 was a resident of Bona Armullah and not Manz Armullah, rejected the claim of the petitioner without any justification.

5) The writ petition has been resisted by the official respondents by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, the official respondents have justified the action of selection of respondent No.5 and claimed that the case of the petitioner is without any basis.

6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

7) The short controversy involved in this case is as to whether respondent No.5 was eligible to be appointed as an Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Manz Armullah in terms of guidelines and rules holding the field. The dispute raised by petitioner is that she is a resident of the habitation in which the Anganwadi Centre is located whereas respondent No.5 belongs to a different habitation and, as such, she is not eligible as per the guidelines. The matter, in terms of order passed by this Court in SWP No.1104/2011 was referred to Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, for holding an enquiry into these factual aspects. The Deputy Commissioner, after holding an enquiry, found that there exist two Mohallas in Village Armullah viz. Bonpora and Herpora. It was also found that one Anganwadi Centre was already functioning in the Village, so new Anganwadi Centre was established in the uncovered area of Armullah Village. Both petitioner and respondent No.5 submitted their applications and competed for selection but respondent No.5 secured higher merit. The Deputy Commissioner also found during enquiry that earlier Anganwadi Centre was established near the house of petitioner whereas new one has been established near the house of respondent No.5. Thus, according to Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.5 was eligible to apply for the Anganwadi Centre which is subject matter of instant petition.

8) The findings of the Deputy Commissioner as regards the factual aspects pertaining to eligibility of respondent No.5 is clear and lucid which is based upon material on record that was collected by the officer during the course of the enquiry. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, it would not be open for this Court to disturb these findings of fact and go into veracity and authenticity of the documents placed on record by the petitioner to show that respondent No.5 does not belong to the relevant area.

9) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

10) The parties to bear their own costs.