Zahara Banoo vs State

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.—Government order No. 07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 [Refer JKS Soft JKS/7074] (hereinafter to be referred

as Government order) lays down the ""Norms for identification of Anganwari Centres and selection of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers"". Clause-3 of

this order provides for the ""Criteria for selection of Anganwadi Worker"". The criteria, besides prescribing age and qualification, provides in its para

(e) that:

e. The candidate should belong to the hamlet where the Anganwari Centre is located. If a suitable candidate is not available in that hamlet, the

candidate should be selected from the Revenue Village of which the said hamlet is a part. Likewise, if no suitable candidate in that revenue village is

available, a candidate from the adjoining Revenue Village shall be selected on the basis of inter-se-merit.

Question raised in this writ petition is:

Whether a candidate selected for engagement as Anganwadi Worker will lose her candidature for such engagement if after her selection and

before order of engagement is issued she marries a person not belonging to the concerned hamlet?

Facts leading to this question briefly are these;

Petitioner pursuant to an advertisement notification issued for engagement of Anganwadi Worker for Anganwari Centre of Groung Minjee, hamlet

in block Kargil of District Kargil, applied for the said engagement. She was selected vide order No. PO/ICDS/Kgl/2010-11/767-77 dated

09.08.2010. However, before order of her engagement was issued, complaints were made by some candidates that the petitioner was not resident

of that hamlet. The Child Development Officer, Kargil, herein respondent No. 3, after obtaining report from supervisor of the concerned zone

found that the petitioner had married in Mohalla, Gongama, Minjee, and therefore, cancelled the selection of the petitioner and informed her vide

his notice No. CDPO/Kgl/174-75 dated 20.07.2011. Alongside, respondent No. 3 vide his No. ICDS/Kgl/2011-12/178-82 dated 20.07.2011

issued fresh advertisement notification for engagement of Anganwari Workers for among others Anganwari Centre Groung, Minjee.

Petitioner feeling aggrieved has assailed the cancellation of her selection and the fresh advertisement notification in this writ petition and seeks

writ of certiorari quashing cancellation notice dated 20.07.2011 as well as advertisement notification No. ICDS/Kgl/2011-12/178-82 dated

20.07.2011 as regards Anganwari Centre Groung Minjee. She also seeks mandamus directing the respondents to complete the selection pursuant

to earlier advertisement notification and issue formal appointment order in favour of the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have pursued the record.

It is not disputed and rather emerged as admitted position at the hearing of the case, firstly, that the petitioner got married after the date of her

selection and before issuance of engagement order pursuant thereto and secondly, that the petitioner was married with a person who belongs to

another Mohalla (hamlet) namely, Gonama, of the same village, namely, Minjee. The Anganwari Centre is located in Mohalla (Hamlet) Groung of

Village Minjee, whereas, the person to whom the petitioner has been married belongs to Mohalla (hamlet) Gongama of the same village.

Mr. H.R. Wani, Advocate, urged on behalf of the petitioner that as Clause 3(e) of the Government Order lays down the criteria for selection

and not engagement of an Anganwadi worker so the relevant cut-off point as regards-the residence of a candidate as contemplated under clause

3(e) would be the date of advertisement or at the most date of selection and nothing beyond that. Mr. Wani, drew support from Full Bench

judgment of this court in State of Jammu and Kashmir, Dr. Ravinder Maadan and Anjali Khosla Vs. Dr. Susheela Sawhney and State of Jammu

and Kashmir, .

On the other hand, Ms. Nusrat Razak, learned GA, appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the cut-off date in this regard would

be date of engagement and the candidature would be liable to be rejected if a candidates abandons residence of that hamlet before her engagement

order is issued. Ms. Nusrat, submitted that such an interpretation of clause 3(e) of the Government Order would be in consonance with the object

and purpose of the establishment of Anganwari Centres because only a native of the same hamlet can render useful services at Anganwari Centre.

In context of rival contentions, it needs to be pointed out that clause 3 of the Government order on its bare look provides the criteria, for

'selection' of Anganwadi Workers and not their engagement. It may be seen that the Government Order does not rule out the scope of a person

(female) to continue performing functions as Anganwadi worker if she is married out of the concerned hamlet. What it being emphasized is that the

Government Order does not contain a disqualification clause providing for disqualification and removal of a person from her job if after her

engagement as Anganwari Worker she marries with a person not belonging to that hamlet. In that to say that an Anganwari Worker should remain

resident of the same hamlet all through may not be correct interpretation of clause 3(e). What would be required is that she continues performing

her duties to the full satisfaction of the job requirement.

When there is no disqualification clause in the Government Order, it cannot be said that a person fulfilling the criteria for selection as Anganwari

Worker and having been so selected, would lose her candidature merely if before issuance of engagement order in her favour she marries with a

person not belonging to that hamlet. To interpret clause-3(e) in a manner to debar a person from engagement as Anganwari Worker due to her

marriage after selection with a person belonging to another hamlet would mean adding to the Government Order, besides being against social order

indeed because an unmarried girl having been selected for engagement as Anganwari Worker would not be in a position to opt for marriage till

engagement order is issued in her favour and may be even after her engagement. Such interpretation of the clause would operate even more harshly

when a girl has been married in the same village though in another Mohalla (hamlet), as in the case on hand.

For all that said and discussed above, the proposition framed hereinabove is answered in negative and in this regard contention of respondent

is rejected. Viewed thus, the writ petition has merit and is allowed by quashing the cancellation of the selection of the petitioner as also the

advertisement notification No. ICDS/Kgl/2011-12/178-82 dated 20.07.2011 to the extent of engagement of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari

Centre, Groung, Minjee.