Zubaida vs State Of Jk & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 154 J&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Zubaida vs State Of Jk & Ors on 14 May, 2025

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                             Sr. No. 26
                                                                             Regular Cause List


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                              AT SRINAGAR

                                            LPA No. 351/2024

         Zubaida                                                      ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

         Through:          Mr. Umar Rashid Wani, Adv.

                                                    Vs.
         State of JK & Ors.                                                      ...Respondent(s)

         Through:          Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Mr. Mohd Younus Hafiz, AC



         CORAM:
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
                              ORDER

14.05.2025

[Oral]

1. This intra-court appeal by the appellant arises out of an order and judgment dated 13th December 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court ["the Writ Court"] in SWP No. 1840/2016 titled Masrat Bashir vs. State of JK & Ors.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel for the appellant to throw challenge to the impugned judgment, we deem it appropriate to take note of the few facts which are germane for the disposal of controversy raised before us.

3. Vide Advertisement Notice No. DIPK-7816 dated 24th October 2014 issued by CDPO, ICDS Lar, applications were invited from female eligible candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Worker in various Anganwadi Centres including Anganwadi Centre, Sheikh Mohalla, Magray Mohalla, (Ward No. 4). The Appellant as well as respondent No. 5 claiming to be the residents of hamlet concerned submitted their applications. The applications of the appellant and respondent No. 5 were considered by the District Level Selection Committee Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this

15.05.2025 constituted by the Government and upon conclusion of the selection process, a provisional select list was published. Respondent No. 5 with merit points 60.16 figured at serial No. 1, whereas the appellant with merit points 41.7 figured at serial No. 2. However, when the final select list was published by notification dated 1 st April 2015, the appellant who was figuring at serial No. 2 in the merit list was shown selected and engaged as Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Centre in question.

4. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the respondent No. 3. On the direction of respondent No. 3, a Committee headed by Assistant Commissioner, (Revenue), Ganderbal was constituted to look into the matter. The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), upon conducting an enquiry, intimated to the respondent no. 3 vide his communication dated 16 th January 2016 that in view of the vagueness of the advertisement notification, the selection process needed to be rescinded. He, therefore, suggested that a fresh process of selection may be initiated.

5. The respondent No. 3 ignored the report submitted by Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) and rejected the appeal of respondent No. 5 holding that the respondent No.5 did not fall within the eligibility criteria of selection of Anganwadi Workers i.e., she did not belong to hamlet Sheikh Mohalla/Magray Mohalla, Lar.

6. The impugned selection as also the order passed by the respondent No. 3 in appeal were called in question by respondent No. 5 in SWP No. 1840/2016. The writ petition was contested by the appellant herein. The Writ Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, came to the conclusion that there was vagueness in the advertisement notification and also that the appellant and respondent No. 5 had failed to produce any record to substantiate and prove that they were the residents of hamlet where the Anganwadi Centre in question was established. The Writ Court arrived at the conclusion that, in the given facts and circumstances, it was appropriate to set-aside the selection process and direct the official respondents to issue fresh advertisement notification for Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this

15.05.2025 engagement of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Sheikh Mohalla/Magray Mohalla, of Village Lar. The writ petition was disposed of by the Writ Court vide judgment impugned in this appeal. The impugned judgment of the Writ Court is assailed by the appellant inter alia on the ground that the Writ Court could not have quashed the entire selection process particularly when the same was not subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

7. Mr. Umar Rashid Wani, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was ample documentary evidence on record to show that the respondent No. 5 was not the resident of hamlet Sheikh Mohalla/Magray Mohalla, and, therefore, was rightly excluded from the zone of selection by the Selection Committee. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 5 is admittedly a resident of Sheikh Mohalla "A" which already has an Anganwadi Centre in operation. He, therefore, urges us to interfere with the judgment of the Writ Court and uphold the selection of the appellant. While concluding his argument, he would submit that in view of the later development i.e., the marriage of respondent No. 5 with a resident of Village Watlar, which is a village distinct from village Lar, respondent No. 5 has lost right of consideration for the position in question.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we need to take a pragmatic view in the matter so that the justice is served to the parties.

9. Admittedly, the location of Anganwadi Centre as indicated in the advertisement notification dated 24th October 2014 is Sheikh Mohalla/Magray Mohalla, (Ward No. 4) which falls in Village Lar. The material on record clearly indicates that, strictly speaking, neither the appellant nor the respondent No. 5 are the residents of hamlet named in the advertisement notification as Sheikh Mohalla/Magray Mohalla.

10. As per the report of the revenue agencies including the enquiry report prepared by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), the appellant is a Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this

15.05.2025 resident of Sheikh Mohalla "B", whereas respondent No. 5 is a resident of Sheikh Mohalla "A". There is, however, no reference to Magray Mohalla. It has also come in the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) that neither Sheikh Mohalla "A" nor Magray Mohalla or even Sheikh Mohalla "B" fall in Ward No. 4 as is indicated in the advertisement notification. Obviously, there is ambiguity in the advertisement notification.

11. Looking into the admitted position on record, we can say that either both the appellant as well as respondent No. 5 belong to the hamlet concerned or both of them do not belong to the hamlet. However, having regard to the fact that Sheikh Mohalla "A" is already having Anganwadi Centre existing at a distance of 100 meters from the house of respondent No. 5, we find that the claim of the appellant in respect of Anganwadi Centre in question is slightly better. We are saying so because there is no Anganwadi Centre sanctioned for Sheikh Mohalla "B" and the only Centre existing is in Baba Mohalla, that too, at a distance of 300 meters away from the residence of the appellant. It has also come on record in the shape of a communication of Tehsildar, Lar dated 2nd December 2024 addressed to CDPO, Lar that the respondent No. 5 had contracted her marriage about 3 years back and is presently residing with her husband in village Watlar, a village different from village Lar.

12. In view of the provisions of Government Order No. 222-JK(SWD) of 2022 dated 30th November 2022, respondent No. 5, even if she would have been in service as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre Sheikh Mohalla/Magray Mohalla, she would have lost her engagement on her marriage outside her Ward/Village. If we were to agree with the learned Single Judge and allow the official respondents to go for fresh advertisement notification, in that eventuality also, respondent No. 5 would not be eligible to participate.

13. There is equity in favour of the appellant who having been engaged in the year 2016 has been in the service of official respondents as Anganwadi Worker for the last 9 years. That apart, the evidence collected by the Appellate Authority and the documents placed on Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this

15.05.2025 record by both the sides do not confirm with certainty that respondent No. 5 before her marriage was actually and physically residing in the hamlet known as Sheikh Mohalla/Magray Mohalla.

14. For the foregoing reasons, we find merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly allowed. The order of the Writ Court impugned in this appeal is set-aside.

                                (SANJAY PARIHAR)            (SANJEEV KUMAR)
                                          JUDGE                      JUDGE
          SRINAGAR:
          14.05.2025
          Altaf


                                Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No




Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this

15.05.2025