NAYEEMA AHMAD Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applications for engagement of Anganwari Workers, inter alia, for Anganwari Centre Wani/Mir Mohalla Bunpora, Darpora, figuring at serial no.18 in Advertisement Notice no.ICDS/SG, were invited. Nine candidates including petitioner and respondent no.7 responded thereto. Interview was conducted on 17th January 2011. Tentative Selection List was issued vide no.ICDS/Sog/11/330-34 dated 18th January 2011. Petitioner was shown amongst selected candidates for Anganwari Centre Wani/Mir Mohalla Bunpora, Darpora, at serial no.19 and finally engaged as Angawari Worker by Order no.CDPO/ICDS/Estt/11/81-83 dated 25th May 2011. Aggrieved thereof, respondent no.7 preferred an Appeal in terms of Government order no.7-SW of 2010 dated 18th January 2010, before Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara. Appeal was allowed by Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, vide order dated 17th January 2013 and respondent department directed to consider engagement of respondent no.7 as Anganwari Worker, being meritorious and a resident of advertised hamlet.

(2.) Petitioner claims that Government order no.07-SW of 2010 dated 18th January 2010 is not clear that who shall file a revision petition against the order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, and appeal and petitioner though she approached Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, but no effective proceedings were initiated by the said Authority and on the advice of earlier counsel, she withdrew her revision petition in order to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner avers that he has been condemned unheard and that respondent no.6 has passed order in violation of norms and mandate of Government Order no.07-SW of 2010 dated 18th January 2010 and while doing so, respondent no.6 has exceeded his jurisdiction not vested in him, thereby depriving her of her valuable and vested right of engagement as Anganwari Worker inasmuch as impugned order has been passed at the back of petitioner and respondents have observed procedural safeguards in breach and consequently have infringed her fundamental rights. Petitioner on the edifice of case set up beseeches quashment of order dated 17th January 2013 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, and irder dated 7th February 2013 passed by Chief Development Project Officer (CDPO), ICDS, Sogam, Kupwara, with a direction to respondents to allow petitioner to discharge her duties and pay honorarium to her.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 4, after detailing out brief resume of the facts relating to the subject-matter of the present controversy, insist that impugned order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, was forwarded by respondent no.2 to respondent no.3 for considering respondent no.7 as Anganwari Worker, subject to the condition that she fulfils prescribed eligibility criteria. The impugned order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, is stated to have been implemented in letter and spirit by respondent no.5 vide Order no.CDPO/ICDS/Sgm/Leg/464-68 dated 7th February 2013, cancelling engagement of petitioner and engaging respondent no.7 as Anganwari Worker. Respondents claim that respondent no.7 is presently working as Anganwari Worker and that Anganwari Centre is functional as per norms. It is affirmed that prior to institution of instant writ petition, petitioner preferred a Revision Petition against impugned order dated 17th January 2013 before Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, but before its final disposal, she withdrew the revision petition without permission and liberty, and withdrawal of revision petition without permission to file a fresh petition has, in law, precluded petitioner to approach this Court on same subject matter.