SHABNAZ KOSSER Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Phase-3rd of expansion programme of ICDS an Anganwari Centre for hamlet Pandran and Jakala comprised in Ward No.5 and 6 of Panchayat Halqa Badakana ICDS Project Darhal came to be sanctioned. Vide advertisement notification dtd. 1/7/2010 issued by respondent No.4, applications were invited for engagement as Anganwari Workers/Helpers on honorarium basis for various Anganwari Centres including the Anganwari Centre in question. The petitioner along with respondent No.7 and few others claiming to be the residents of the concerned hamlet submitted their application forms.

(2.) The application forms submitted by the eligible candidates were scrutinized by the Selection Committee and a list of eligible candidates was prepared in accordance with the procedure laid down by respondents vide Government Order No.07-SW of 2010 dtd. 18/1/2010 read with corrigendum issued vide Order No.10-SW of 2010 dtd. 19/1/2010. All the eligible candidates, as is claimed by the official respondents, were interviewed by the then Selection Committee and on the basis of academic merit and performance in the interview, a merit list was prepared. In the provisional select list, a candidate, namely, Yasmeen Akhter was shown provisionally selected as Anganwari Worker, however, selection of Yasmeen Akhter was objected to by the other candidates on the ground that the documents submitted by her were tampered. She was given an opportunity to produce the original documents, which she could not produce. Consequently, her selection was cancelled. The candidate next in merit in the select list Ms. Samara Kouser, too, failed to produce the requisite documents for verification of their genuineness.

(3.) Left with no option, official respondents called the third candidate in the order of merit but she, too, could not be engaged for having married outside the Tehsil during currency of the selection process. This is how respondent No.7 (private respondent), who was figuring at serial No.4 in the select list on the basis of her merit, was offered engagement. It is this engagement of the private respondent made by respondent No.5 vide order dtd. 11/10/2012, which is called in question in this petition.