Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Zareena Bano vs State Of J&K And Others on 9 May, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
SWP No. 562/2018
th
Pronounced on : 9 .05.2022
Zareena Bano .... Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate.
V/s
State of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. K. D. S. Kotwal, Dy. AG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. The office of the District Programme Officer, District Doda
vide Advertisement No. 01 of 2014 dated 03.07.2014 invited
applications from eligible female candidates for engagement as
Anganwadi Workers and Helpers on honorarium basis for the
Anganwadi Centres in eight ICDS Projects of District Doda in the Forty
one Hamlets of District Doda.
02. The petitioner applied for engagement to the post of
Anganwari Worker, as advertised for Anganwadi Centre at Ansi village
Kurmail Block Assar District Doda under ST category.
03. The petitioner being middle pass i.e. qualified 8th Class,
belonging to ST category and being a resident of the same hamlet was
eligible to be appointed as Anganwari Worker at the Anganwari Centre
at Ansi village Kurmail Block Assar District Doda.
04. The interviews were conducted by the respondents, however,
there was no communication from the official respondents regarding
the selection of candidates. It was only in the month of December,
2016, the petitioner came to know about the engagement of respondent
No. 5 as Anganwari Worker in Anganwadi Centre at Ansi village
Kurmail Block Assar District Doda. The petitioner immediately
thereafter approached the official respondents for information regarding
engagement of Anganwari Worker for the requisite centre. She was
informed on 13.02.2017 that respondent No. 5 stands engaged as
Anganwari Worker w.e.f. 18.11.2016 in terms of Govt. order No. 7-SW
of 2010 dated 18.01.2010.
05. Aggrieved of the engagement of respondent No. 5 as
Anganwari Worker in Anganwadi Centre at Ansi, the petitioner filed an
appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Doda (Appellate Authority)
against order dated 18.11.2016. The engagement of respondent No. 5
was challenged on the ground that she did not fulfill the eligibility
conditions in terms of the Advertisement Notice, as respondent No. 5
neither belonged to the Hamlet where the Anganwari Centre was
located, nor belonged to the ST category, as such, was ineligible to be
appointed as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwari Centre, Ansi.
06. This Deputy Commissioner, Doda (Appellate Authority) on
04.08.2017, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated
04.08.2017. The petitioner after the rejection of her appeal did not
prefer a revision against the order within the period of limitation, as
such, has approached this Court for grant of following reliefs:-
a. Certiorari for quashing the engagement of respondent No. 5 as
Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Ansi, Block Assar
District Doda;
b. Further quashing the order dated 04.08.2016 issued by
respondent No. 2 by which the engagement of respondent No.
5 has been confirmed;
c. Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 4 to engage
petitioner as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Ansi,
Block Assar, District Doda.
07. The contention of the petitioner is that she belongs to Nomad
community and falls in ST category, as such, was the only eligible
candidate to be appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker in the
Anganwadi Centre, Ansi. The post at Anganwari Centre, Ansi was
advertised only for ST category, therefore, it was incumbent on the
respondents to select her as she fulfilled all the eligibility conditions.
The Appellate Authority had ignored the fact that the petitioner is still
residing with her parents in Ward No. 3 in Village Kurmail and,
therefore, was entitled to be engaged to the aforesaid post.
08. The respondents submit that the appellate authority has
considered and decided the appeal on merit. They submit that in terms
of Government Order No.07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010, „if a
suitable candidate is not available in the concerned Hamlet then the
selection is to be made from the concerned revenue village'.
09. This criteria has also been incorporated in the eligibility
condition in the advertisement notice. Since there was no suitable
candidate available in the concerned Ward, therefore, respondent No. 5
was selected for the said post. This apart, it is well settled that there is
no reservation under any category in ICDS Scheme.
10. It appears that seven candidates had applied for the post of
Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Centre Ansi viz Rattana Devi,
petitioner-Zareena Banoo, Rajinika Devi, respondent No. 5-Binty Devi,
Neena Devi, Rafiqa Bano and Manju Devi. After considering all these
candidates, respondent No. 5 was selected for the post of Anganwari
Worker. The Appellate Authority while considering the selection in
terms of Government Order No.07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010, had
opined that in view of the criteria fixed, the only candidate residing at
Ansi Ward No. 3 was Rattano Devi, who had the qualification of
middle pass and could have been engaged but she has not agitated the
matter and was not aggrieved by the selection of respondent No. 5. So
far as the case of Zareena Bano was concerned, she is only 8th pass and
could not be selected in view of the higher merit of respondent No. 5.
The Appellate Authority, thus, rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide
order dated 04.08.2017 with the following observations:-
"...Therefore, in view of the factual position discussed
above, the present appeal is rejected on following grounds:-
1. The appeal is time barred and the appellant has not
applied for condonation of delay.
2. That as per the norms of ICDS, issued by the Ministry of
Women and Child Development, New Delhi, bearing
No.110001 dated 03.06.2011, the ICDS Scheme is open to
all, no reservation in selection of honorary worker is
applicable. In view of these norms, the contention of
appellant that the said post of Anganwari Worker was
reserved for Scheduled Tribe Candidate is not valid and
genuine.
3. The appellant was a resident of Ward No. 1 Kurmail at the
time of submission of application forms. She had already
married one Khushal Ahmed, a resident of Kurmail-Ward
No. 1 and as such, she cannot claim her engagement
against the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari
Centre Ansi, falling in Ward No. 3 of Panchayat
Ramgarh."
11. The petitioner after passing of the order had requisite time to
file the revision against the order but chose not to do so.
12. Be that as it may, the Appellate Authority after considering
the facts came to the conclusion that the petitioner at the time of
submission of application form was a resident of Kurmail-Ward No. 1
and married with Khushal Ahmed, as such, could not claim her
engagement against the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwari
Centre Ansi, falling in Ward No. 3. It is also well settled that in terms
of the norms of the ICDS Scheme issued by the Ministry of Women
and Child Development, New Delhi dated 03.06.2011, there is no
reservation in selection of honorary workers is applicable.
13. The Appellate Authority after considering all the facts and
records has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not
eligible for appointment and, as such, no ground for interference is
made out.
14. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition
which is, accordingly, dismissed, along with connected application(s),
if any.
(Sindhu Sharma)
Judge
JAMMU
09.05.2022
Ram Murti
Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes
