Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Saleema Begum vs Ut Of Jk And Others on 30 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No.05
REGULAR LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA 176/2024 in[SWP 1384/2016]
SALEEMA BEGUM ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad Malla, Advocate
Vs.
UT OF JK AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Waseem Gul, GA for 1 to 4
Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate for 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
30.10.2025
Sanjeev Kumar-J (Oral):
1. Impugned in this appeal, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is an order and judgment dated 31st May,
2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court ["the writ
Court"] in SWP No. 1384/2016 titled "Saleema Begum Vs. State
of J&K & Ors.", whereby the writ Court has allowed the writ
petition filed by respondent No. 5 and quashed the order dated 28 th
June, 2016, whereby the engagement of respondent No. 5 as
Helper in Anganwadi Centre, Nagni (Shatigam), had been
cancelled.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that
vide Advertisement Notification dated 21st February, 2015, issued
by the respondent No. 4, applications were invited for engagement
of Anganwadi Helper for various Anganwadi Centres, including
the Anganwadi Centre, Nagni Shatigam. The appellant as well as
respondent No. 5 responded to the aforesaid advertisement
notification and participated in the selection process. The process
of selection culminated in the selection and engagement of
respondent No. 5 vide order dated 30th May, 2016.
3. The selection and engagement of respondent No. 5 was objected to
by the appellant by filing a representation on the ground that the
appellant was more meritorious than the respondent No. 5. The
appellant also sought intervention of the local Panches and
Sarpanches as well as the Minister concerned. It seems that on the
intervention made by the Minister concerned, the engagement
order issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 was withdrawn, and
in her place, the appellant was engaged as Anganwadi Helper in
the Anganwadi Centre in question. This order of respondent No. 4,
dated 28th June, 2016 cancelling the engagement of respondent No.
5 and ordering the engagement of the appellant was assailed by the
respondent No. 5 in SWP No. 1384/2016.
4. The writ petition was contested by the appellant, asserting her right
to engagement on the ground that she was more meritorious than
respondent No. 5 and also that she fell in the category of „poorest
of the poor‟ and, therefore, was entitled to preferential treatment
as per the terms of the Scheme.
5. The writ Court, having considered the rival contentions and
perused the material on record, came to the conclusion that the
appellant herein being only a 7th pass, was not eligible to be
appointed as Anganwadi Helper in the face of availability of an
eligible candidate i.e. respondent No. 5 possessing the qualification
of 8th pass. The writ Court vide judgment impugned allowed the
writ petition in the manner we have noticed hereinabove.
6. It is this judgment of the writ Court which is called in question
before us by the appellant, primarily on the ground that the writ
Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 5 was not the
resident of Hamlet Nagni of Revenue Village Shartigam, and
therefore, the appellant being the only candidate available in the
village having the qualification of 7th pass was also eligible and
entitled to be engaged.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the
judgment impugned passed by the writ Court is perfectly legal and
in conformity with the facts on record. Indisputably, the appellant
did not take exception to the engagement of respondent No. 5 on
the ground that she did not belong to Hamlet Nagni, either in her
representation or in the reply affidavit filed before the writ Court.
The plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is totally
an afterthought and has been raised for the first time in this appeal,
that too without substantiating it by any cogent documentary
evidence.
8. The only case which was set up by the appellant before the writ
Court in its reply affidavit was that the appellant was more
meritorious than the respondent No. 5 and also that she fell in the
category of „poorest of the poor‟ in the village, entitled to
preferential treatment. Both these aspects have been dealt with by
the writ Court in the light of the Scheme in vogue at the time of
Arif Hameed issuance of the advertisement notification. It is not disputed before
us that as per the scheme which was in vogue at the relevant point
of time, the minimum qualification prescribed for being engaged
as Anganwadi Helper was middle pass. It was only if a middle pass
candidate was not available, the candidates with lesser
qualification were entitled to be considered. In the instant case, the
respondent No. 5, a local candidate belonging to Hamlet Nagni
with qualification of middle pass was available, and therefore, the
appellant with a qualification of below that, was ineligible to be
considered for the position in question.
9. The writ Court has also rightly concluded that an ineligible cannot
seek preference on the ground that he or she belongs to a category
for which preference has been provided in the scheme. The
eligibility is sine qua non for engagement and in the instant case
the eligibility criteria was 8th pass. It is only where the 8th pass
candidates are not available in the village concerned, the
candidates with lesser qualification can be considered.
10.For the forgoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the
same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
30.10.2025
"ARIF"
(i) Whether the Order is reportable? Yes/No.
(ii) Whether the Order is speaking? Yes/No.
