Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Veerta Devi vs State Th. Medical Education ... on 2 December, 2021
Sr. No. 18.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
SWP No. 2568/2010
IA(3621/2010
Veerta Devi ....Petitioner(s)
Through :- None
V/s
State Th. Medical Education Deptt.and
others ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. H.A.Siddiqui, Sr. AAG for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Dapinder Kumar, Advocate for R-4.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
02.12.2021
1. An advertisement came to be issued by respondent No.3 bearing
Advertisement Notice No. 1 dated 29.07.2010 on behalf of District Health
Society Doda whereunder the applications were invited for contractual
appointments of various categories of different level in district Doda under
National Rural Health Mission and 58 posts of 2nd ANM in Sub-Centre
were also advertised and the requisite qualification was shown as
Matriculate with diploma in FMPHW from J&K Medical Council or from
any other recognized institution. The petitioner being fully eligible and
having the requisite diploma from the J&K State Medical Faculty and also
being at "zero distance" from the PHC Ghat also applied for the post of
ANM. It is contended that the official respondents issued provisional
select list for the post of FMPHW/ANM on 29.09.2010, wherein the
petitioner figures at serial no. 58 for Sub-Centre Ghat of district Doda
whereas the name of respondent No.4 has not been shown in the list. The
respondent No.3 issued final selection list for the post in question under
National Rural Health Mission District Doda on 30.10.2010 and the
petitioner owes not figure in the list of PHC Ghat, but, instead respondent
No.4 has been shown selected for this Primary Health Centre Ghat despite
the fact that respondent No.4 nowhere existed in the provisional select list.
Being aggrieved of this inaction on the part of respondents, this writ
petition has been filed seeking quashment of selection list dated
30.10.2010 so far as it pertains to the selection of respondent No.4 as
ANM/FMPHW in Sub- Centre Ghat of Tehsil and District Doda with a
further direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as
ANM/FMPHW for Sub-Centre Ghat being actual resident of
Ghat(Arnora) and thus having superior claim as against the respondent
No.4 with further direction to the respondents not to allow the respondent
No.4 to join as FMPHW/ANM in Sub-Centre Ghat.
2. Respondents have filed objections. Respondents 1 to 3 have stated that in
response to the provisional list, several candidates filed their
objections/representation against the provisionally selected candidates
including the petitioner who figured in the provisional selected list at
serial No.58. All the objections/representation were examined and
assessed by the committee headed by District Development Commissioner
(Chairman, District Health Society), Doda. Accordingly, the petitioner
who was figuring at serial No.58 in the provisional select list had to be
dropped in the final select list due to the objections raised by the private
respondent No.4 which was found genuine by the committee as far as
locality and merit is concerned. It is further submitted that the answering
respondents have re-examined the case and by virtue of their evidence
submitted by her with representation/objection and the official
respondents after considering all aspects/norms finally selected the private
respondent No.4 on the basis of her locality and higher merit as compared
to petitioner.
3. Respondent No.4 has also filed objections contending therein that in
terms of her selection, she has submitted her joining report on 01.11.2010
before the Block Medical Officer, Ghat and continuously performing her
duties ever since. It is further contended that the conditions of eligibility as
laid down in the original advertisement notice are being distorted by the
petitioner by saying that the "candidate must be residing permanently
where the health institution is located". It is further contended that a close
look at the advertisement notice shows that the candidates applying for the
post are required to serve in the concerned health Centre round the clock
and therefore, should be resident of local area where the health institution
is located. In so far as the respondent no.4 is concerned, it is stated that
she is the resident of the area where the health institution is located. It is
further contended in the objections filed by the respondent No.4 that as per
initial merit list prepared by the panel, the respondent no.4 was not given
any number for local preference, i.e. zero out of ten and even then the
respondent No.4 could secure 63.7 marks. Being aggrieved, respondent
No.4 approached the District Development Commissioner, Doda bringing
it to his notice that she also belongs to the same revenue village to which
the petitioner Veerta Devi belongs and therefore, she was also entitled to
10 points earmarked for the local preference. Her representation was
processed and after making factual verification, the competent authority
realized its mistake and issued order of appointment of answering
respondent No.4, pursuant to which she already joined. Respondent No.4
further contends that petitioner figures far below in merit as compared to
the answering respondent No.4. It is contended that in the provisional
select list, the petitioner has wrongly been shown. It is incorrect to state
that the answering respondent No.4 resides at a distance of more than 02
kilometers from the Primary Health Centre. The factual verification has
been done by the competent authority including the Deputy Commissioner
and appropriate rectification has been carried out by giving marks to the
respondent No.4 also being local.
4. I have gone through the writ petition and heard learned counsel for the
respondents.
5. The respondents 1 to 3 placed on record merit list of the candidates
applied for the post in question. Perusal whereof reveals that Veerta Devi
petitioner has secured 66.24 marks whereas respondent No.4 Sonika
Bhagat has secured 73.7 marks. It is further mentioned in the merit list that
respondent No.4 being local and higher in merit selected for S/C, Ghat.
The official respondents after re-examining the case of the respondent
No.4 and after considering all aspects/norms finally selected the
respondent No.4 on the basis of her locality and higher merit as compared
to petitioner. Therefore, as far as locality and merit is concerned, no
fundamental, legal or statutory rights of the petitioner, has been violated
by the official respondents.
6. Viewed thus, this petition found to be without any merit and is
accordingly dismissed along with connected IA(s). Interim direction, if
any, shall stand vacated.
(Tashi Rabstan)
Judge
Jammu:
02.12.2021
'Madan-PS'
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
MADAN LAL VERMA
2021.12.06 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
