SYED BARJAS AKHTER Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to have been engaged as Anganwari Worker vide order dated October 02, 2008 (Annexure A to writ petition). She, in writ petition, states that a suit has been filed before learned Sub Judge, Anantnag, by one Shagufta Parveen (who was not made party but later on arrayed on her motion as party respondent no.6 vide order dated April 02, 2014). According to petitioner, interim application was dismissed by learned Sub Judge, Anantnag, against which challenge was thrown before learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag, who, she says, passed order of consideration to both petitioner as well as respondent no.6. Respondent no.6, as maintained by petitioner in writ petition, has never applied for the position of Anganwari Worker. Petitioner, on the edifice of case set up, seeks direction in the name of respondents not to cause any sort of undue interference in the service of petitioner as Anganwari Worker at Sheikhpora Kapran Tehsil Dooru District Anantnag.

(2.) Respondents have filed reply. Respondents 1 to 5 insist that petitioner was engaged temporarily as Anganwari Worker on the recommendation of the MLA Dooru and that respondent no.6 challenged petitioner's selection. As a consequence thereof, petitioner, as is averred by respondents in their reply, was disengaged vide order no.CDPO/ICDS/Lp/Estt/2013/486-91 dated December 02, 2013. Respondents avow that in view of order dated December 19, 2013, passed in writ petition on hand, petitioner was allowed to work as Anganwari Worker. They state that writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Insofar as respondent no.6 is concerned, she states in her reply that a civil suit concerning same subject matter was instituted in the year 2010. Petitioner, as has been insisted, is not eligible in any respect as petitioner does not belong to the area, for which selection was made, rather she belongs to the Dooru Town, at a distance of some 30 kilometres from the place; that the order of engagement was issued at the behest of the MLA and such order is in violation of rules and regulations. Respondent no.6 has also referred in her reply to various communications, whereby it has been made clear that petitioner has been engaged I violation of rules and regulations.