Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sheelo Devi vs State Of J&K And Others on 7 February, 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
SWP No. 645/2018
IA No. 1/2018
Pronounced on: 07.02.2022
Sheelo Devi .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Jagpaal Singh, Advocate
V/s
State of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. H. A Siddiqui, Sr. AAG
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. The District Health Society Udhampur invited applications for
recruitment of contractual staff for various posts including ANMs/FMPHWs
under NHM and RNTCP scheme vide Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2017
dated 14.11.2017.
02. The petitioner being eligible applied for the post of ANMs/FMPHWs
for sub-center Lalli (Panchari). The qualification prescribed for these posts were
Matric with diploma in FMPHW training course from SMF or any other
recognized Institute by the J&K Medical Faculty. The allocation of marks and
the mode of selection in terms of the Advertisement Notice for aforesaid posts is
as under:-
i. Screening Test = 60 points
ii. Matric = 10 points
iii. Diploma in FMPHW from
SMF or other recognized Institute = 15 points
iv. Viva Voce = 15 points
Total = 100 points.
03. The Vice Chairman District Health Society (Chief Medical Officer)
Udhampur, respondent No. 3 vide order No. CMO/Udh/NHM/2017-18/3716-22
dated 27.03.2018 issued the selection list of candidates for engagement for the
post of ANMs/FMPHWs on contractual basis under NHM scheme at Sub-centre
Lalli, Medical Block Panchari. As per the select list, respondent No. 4 was
selected as FMPHW in Sub-Centre Lalli.
04. The petitioner is aggrieved of selection/engagement of respondent No.
4 as FMPHW in Sub-Centre Lalli on the ground that the respondent No. 4 lacks
the local criteria as advertised and, as such, she could not be appointed to the
said post.
05. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 has been
shown to be the resident of Village Damnote at present Lalli is not actual
resident of the Village Lalli. In fact, according to the petitioner, respondent No.
4 in connivance with the other respondents have wrongfully shown to be the
resident of Village Lalli. After her selection, the inhabitants of Village Lalli
have made a detailed representation before respondent No. 3 and it was brought
to his notice that husband of the respondent No. 4 is not a resident of Village
Lalli and does not own any land in the village Lalli as for the last more than 30
years, he alongwith respondent No. 4 is residing in Udhampur. It is urged that
the selection of respondent No. 4 is illegal and arbitrary and the same is against
the criteria as mentioned in the Advertisement Notice, therefore, her selection is
required to be set aside.
06. Mr. H. A Siddiqui, learned Sr. AAG submits that respondent No. 4 is
a resident of Village Lalli whereas the post exists i.e. Sub-Centre Lalli, Medical
Block Panchari, therefore, her selection was based on the local criteria. Since the
merit of the respondent No. 4 was higher i.e., 53.75% than that of the petitioner
whose merit is 47.73%, thus, the respondent No. 4 was selected due to her
superior merit. The respondent No. 4 despite service has chosen not to appear
and is , accordingly, set ex-parte.
07. The submission of the petitioner is that respondents have not followed
the local criteria, as per the Advertisement Notice while making selection to the
post of FMPHW, as such, the selection of respondent No. 4 is bad and the same
is required to be set aside. In terms of the Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2017
dated 14.11.2017, the local criteria is defined in Clause-15, which reads as
under:
"15. Local Criteria for selection: The preference for Selection to the
posts mentioned in Annexure "A" )Sr. No. 02) under National
Health Mission under District Health Society Udhampur shall be
given to the candidates from the same village subject to their
availability and merit. If the candidates are not available within the
village the candidates available with the Medical block shall be
given preference, if the candidates are not available within the
Medical block, the candidates from the Tehsil shall be given
preference, if the candidates are not available within the Tehsil, and
the candidates from within the district shall be considered. As
regard, the Sr. No. 01 & 05 in Annexure "A" the post of JSN and
ISM Pharmacist under NHM, and Sr. No. 01 Annexure "B" Jr.
Pharmacist the candidates from within the Medical Block shall be
considered. As regard, the posts of District Hospital Udhampur,
DEIC Udhampur, national Urban Health Mission (NUHM), the
candidates from within the district shall be considered. As regard,
the post of Accountant in RNTCP in the office of DTC Udhampur
the candidates from within the district shall be considered."
08. The petitioner has placed on record her State Subject as well as
marriage certificate in support of her claim that she is a resident of Village Lalli,
however, so far as the respondent No. 4 is concerned, her State Subject shows
that she is the resident of Village Damnote at present Lalli. Though admittedly
respondent No. 4 is more meritorious than the petitioner but as per the local
criteria, the preference has to be given to the candidates from the same village
and it is only in case if no candidate is available within the village then
candidates from Medical Block will be given preference and in case, they are
also not available then candidates from Tehsil and the District would be
preferred.
09. There is no conclusive proof on record regarding the eligibility of
respondent No. 4. She has also not come forth place anything on record.
Keeping in view the disputed question of fact regarding the residence of the
respondent of village Latti and the fact that the PRC of respondent No. 4 also
reflects Damnote village and in view the contention that she alongwith her
husband is a resident of Udhampur, it would be appropriate if all the facts are
enquired.
10. Accordingly, Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur is directed to enquire
about the actual residents of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4-Monika
Rani after issuing notice to both the parties within eight weeks and pass a
speaking order in this regard which has to be conveyed to both the parties as
well as official respondents. The decision of the Deputy Commissioner shall be
considered by the official respondents as regards the selection impugned.
11. Disposed of alongwith connected application(s), if any.
(Sindhu Sharma)
Judge
JAMMU
07.02.2021
SUNIL-II
Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes
SUNIL KUMAR
2022.02.08 14:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
