SHAMIM AKHTER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year, 2010, respondent No. 4 issued Advertisement Notice, by virtue of which, the applications from the eligible female candidates for engagement as Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Center in ICDS Project, Ramban were invited. In the said Notification, one post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Center, Gagwan Ward No. 6/Hamlet of Panchayat Halqa Dundrath-C was also advertised. The eligibility conditions laid down in the Advertisement Notice were as under:-

(2.) It is also provided in the Advertisement Notice that the candidates should enclose, among others, the proof of residence of the concerned Hamlet where the Anganwari Center is located.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner that the post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Center, Gagwan (Notan) was reserved for Scheduled Tribe Candidate and the petitioner belongs to said category. It is further contended that petitioner being eligible both on the basis of qualification as well as belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category, submitted her application form for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Center, Gagwan (Notan). It is also contended that respondent no.6 is the resident of Ward No. 4 Bagna of Panchayat Halqa Dundrath-C, but, said respondent in connivance with her parents got her name reflected in the voter list of Ward No. 6. It is contended that on the basis of aforesaid manipulation, respondent no.6 also applied for the post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Center, Gagwan (Notan). Subsequently, revision of voter list was made in which name of respondent No. 6 as also of her parents were deleted from the voter list of Ward No. 6. Accordingly, they were included in the voter list of Ward No. 4 (Panch Constituency Bagna). It is also contended that on the basis of cancellation of their names from Ward No. 6, residence certificate of respondent no.6 should have been cancelled by the official respondents, but, the same was not cancelled, compelling the petitioner to serve a legal notice upon the official respondents. It is contended that despite serving legal notice, ward certificate issued in favour of respondent no.6 has not been cancelled rather she was considered in the selection process.