ATIQA BANCO Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties submitted at the Bar that the writ petition may be disposed of at this very stage. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner has called in question Order No. CDPO/Br/Estt/2011/688-92 dated 30.11.2011, passed by respondent No. 4, whereby respondent No. 5 came to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Pathpora, Aharbal. He has also sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue formal engagement order in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) What is gathered from the record is that an advertisement notice came to be issued for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in Anganwadi Centre at Pathpora, Aharbal, Tehsil Beerwah, District Budgam, which was published in a local daily, Srinagar Times (annexure 'B' to the writ petition). The petitioner and four other persons, namely, Malik Tahira Masarat, Malik Razia Batoor, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 herein applied for the said post. Malik Tahira Masarat and Malik Razia Batoor have chosen not to appear in the interview; thus only two candidates, i.e., the petitioner and respondent No. 5, were contenders for the post in question. It is contended that the participation of respondent No. 5 was objected to by the petitioner and by the residents of Pathpora, Aharbal, on the ground that one of the conditions contained in the advertisement notice was that only those candidates residing at Pathpora, Aharbal, are to be considered. It is submitted that respondent No. 5 is the resident of Challapora and, therefore, is not eligible. The petitioner, being a resident of the said area, is the only eligible candidate entitled to be considered and appointed on the said post. It is submitted that officials of the Social Welfare Department and the Revenue Department conducted inquiry and came to the conclusion that respondent No. 5 is not the resident of Pathpora (See annexure 'E' & 'F' to the writ petition) and, accordingly, the petitioner was tentatively selected against the said vacancy.