Rubeena Begum vs State And Ors

1 The selection and engagement of respondent No.7 made pursuant to order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project Bhagwah is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The selection and engagement of respondent No.7 has been called in question by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner, who belongs to Ward No.5, Shallotte where the Anganwari Centre is situated, was most meritorious candidate and had been empanelled for selection, but later on, without any notice to her, her selection was cancelled and in her place, respondent No.7 was selected and engaged.

2 Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that on 11.04.2008, a notification was issued by the Directorate of Social Welfare for making selection to the various posts of Anganwari Workers for various Anganwari Centres which included Anganwari Centre Shallotte, Panchayat Ganika, Tehsil and District Doda. The petitioner applied for the aforesaid post and was considered alongwith other eligible candidates. The claim of the petitioner was considered and on the basis of her merit was proposed for selection against the post of Anganwari Worker in Angwari Centre Shallottte (Ward No.5). The proposed selection of petitioner was, however, challenged by one Kaushalaya Devi by filing objections before the respondents. As it appears from the record, the matter was re-examined and on the basis of a report submitted by the BDO Bagwah, the petitioner was found to be the resident of Ward No.3 and not ward No.5.

On the basis of the report of the BDO Wagwah, the Selection Committee headed by District Social Welfare Officer, Doda cancelled the proposed selection of the petitioner and directed the engagement of respondent No.7 as Anganwari Worker for the Anganwari Centre concerned. It is stated that the order of engagement of respondent No.7 was initially kept in abeyance by this Court vide order dated 27th August, 2009 passed in SWP No. 1546/2009, but the said writ petition was, later on, dismissed. In the meanwhile, feeling aggrieved of the engagement of respondent No.7 in her place, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. There is an order of status quo passed by this Court on 09.02.2012.

In response to the notice issued by this Court, official respondents have filed their objections. The order impugned has been sought to be justified by the official respondents on the ground that pursuant to a complaint received from the aggrieved candidate, namely Kaushala Devi, the matter was re-examined and the BDO Wagwah was called upon to re-verify the residence of the petitioner. It is stated that the BDO, Wagwah, upon re-verification, reported that the petitioner, at the time of issuance of the aforesaid advertisement notice, was not the resident of ward No.5, but was a resident of ward No.3. It is, thus, submitted that acting on the aforesaid report of the BDO, the Selection Committee cancelled the proposed selection of the petitioner. On the similar lines is the reply filed by respondent No.7.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that insofar as the order of cancellation of the proposed selection of the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot sustain being in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is not in dispute that the candidature of the petitioner was considered on the basis of residence certificate issued by BDO, Wagwah indicating the residence of the petitioner as Ward No.5 where the Anganwari Centre in question is situated. It is, on the basis of the eligibility of the petitioner, her name was indicated in the select list at S.No.24. The said list does not indicate, whether it was a provisional or proposed select list. Be that as it may, the mere fact that the petitioner was considered by the Selection Committee as eligible and was even placed in the select list is good enough to conclude that there was some right vested in the petitioner. The petitioner having been placed in the select list had a legitimate expectation that the select list would be followed by the engagement letter in her favour. It is equally true that mere figuring of the name of the petitioner in the select list would not give the petitioner an indefeasible right to be appointed and her selection could well be cancelled or withdrawn for valid reasons. But the least that is required to be done before taking away this right of the petitioner is that the principles of natural justice are complied with.

From the perusal of the objections filed by the respondents, it is writ large that neither the petitioner was ever associated with the so-called verification conducted by the BDO, Wagwah nor was she given any opportunity to put forth her claim. The residence of the petitioner had been disputed and the same required a proper adjudication. There could have been no proper adjudication without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

For all these reasons, I find that the order whereby the engagement of petitioner has been cancelled is not sustainable in law. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that at present there is no body functioning as Anganwari Worker for the Anganwari Centre concerned and this is so, because earlier engagement of respondent No.7 had been stayed in SWP No. 1546/2009 and thereafter, this Court passed an order of status quo on 09.02.2012 in the instant petition. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The order impugned is quashed. The Additional Deputy Commissioner Doda is directed to hold an enquiry into the residence of the petitioner as it was on the date of issuance of the advertisement notification. In case, it is found that the petitioner was the resident of ward No.5 at the relevant point of time, then formal order of engagement in favour of the petitioner shall be issued by the CDPO concerned. However, if it is found that the petitioner was not the resident of ward No.5, but was a resident of ward No.3 or some other ward, in that eventuality, order of engagement issued in favour of respondent No.7 shall be given effect to and she shall be permitted to join. Let an enquiry into the matter be conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Doda within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order giving both the petitioner and respondent No.7 an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

Disposed of in the above terms.