Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Geeta Devi vs Ut Of J&K Through Commissioner on 15 October, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 07.10.2025
Pronounced on:15.10.2025
CJ Court
LPA No.222/2025
Geeta Devi, aged: 54 years
W/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh
R/o Village Malti, Tehsil Bilawar District Kathua.
...APPELLANTS(S)
Through: - Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate.
Vs.
1. UT of J&K through Commissioner
Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu, and six
others.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Ms. Palvi Sharma, Advocate, vice
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
OSWAL 'J'
1) Writ petition bearing SWP No.1518/2014 was preferred
by the appellant for quashing the order dated 26.05.2014,
whereby the respondent No.3 had directed respondent No.4
to terminate the services of four Anganwadi Helpers
including the appellant and to re-advertise and fill the posts
in accordance with rules, and further relief in the form of
writ of mandamus was also sought for commanding the
respondents to allow the appellant to perform her duties in
Anganwadi Centre, Malti, as Anganwadi Helper.
LPA No.222/2025 1|Page
2) It was stated that the appellant was engaged as
Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi Centre, Malti (C) after
participation in the selection process pursuant to
advertisement notification dated 17.02.2005, whereby
applications were invited for the posts of Anganwadi Helper
for Anganwadi Centres in different ICDS projects located in
Districts of Jammu province. While the appellant was
performing the duties as Anganwadi Helper, all of a sudden
by virtue of order dated 26.05.2014 (supra), the respondent
No.3 directed the respondent No.4 to terminate the services
of four Anganwadi Helper including the appellant. It was
contended that no show cause notice was served upon the
appellant before the issuance of order resulting into denial
of opportunity of hearing to the appellant, as the same was
issued just on the basis of recommendation of respondent
No.5. The appellant placed on record the advertisement
notice, selection list of Anganwadi Helpers of ICDS Project,
Billawar and the engagement order dated 31.07.2006 issued
by respondent No.4 in respect of engagement of the
appellant as Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi Centre, Malti
'C'.
3) The writ petition preferred by the appellant was
objected to by the official respondents by submitting that
the appellant was terminated pursuant to the order of the
LPA No.222/2025 2|Page
State Vigilance Commission, passed in a complaint titled
"Dara Chand vs. Babu Ram Tandon" because the appellant
had neither applied for the post of Anganwadi Helper nor
participated in any selection process.
4) The learned Writ Court, vide its judgment dated
22.08.2025, dismissed the writ petition preferred by the
appellant.
5) The appellant has impugned the aforesaid judgment in
this intra-court appeal on the grounds, inter-alia, that the
learned Writ Court has not taken into consideration that the
order of termination is ex-facie arbitrary and illegal having
been issued in utter disregard of the principles of natural
justice; that if there were certain procedural lapses, the
appellant could not have been penalized for such lapses on
the part of the authorities; that the recommendation made
by the State Vigilance Commission was only
recommendatory in nature and the Commission was not
having adjudicatory powers to direct the termination of
services and the finding of the learned Writ Court that the
appellant did not challenge the order passed by the State
Vigilance Commission, is unjustified, particularly when the
appellant was not a party to the proceedings before the State
Vigilance Commission.
LPA No.222/2025 3|Page
6) The appellant through the medium of CM
No.6418/2025 has placed on record the application claimed
to have been submitted by her for engagement as
Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi Centre, Malti.
7) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
appellant had applied pursuant to the advertisement
notification dated 17.02.2005 and participated in the
selection process and thereafter only, she was engaged as
Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi Centre, Malti, but she has
been disengaged by the official respondents only on the
recommendations made by the State Vigilance Commission,
that too without affording any opportunity to the appellant
to put forth her case before the official respondents.
8) Ms. Palvi Sharma, appearing vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta,
AAG, submitted that appropriate orders may be passed.
9) Heard and perused the record.
10) The perusal of advertisement notification dated
17.02.2005 reveals that it was a general notification for
engagement of eligible female candidates as Anganwadi
Helper on honorarium basis for various Anganwadi Centres
in different ICDS Projects located in various Districts of
Jammu province. As per the said notification, the last date
for receipt of applications by post or by hand was
LPA No.222/2025 4|Page
11.03.2005. The application placed on record by the
appellant reveals that it was allegedly submitted by her on
15.03.2006 whereas in the application itself, it is pleaded
that the same was submitted on 16.03.2006 to Child
Development Project Officer, Bilawar. It clearly establishes
the fact that the appellant never applied pursuant to the
notification dated 17.02.2005. Once it is the case of the
appellant herself that she applied on 16.03.2006, then she
can't be heard saying that she applied pursuant to the
advertisement notification dated 17.02.2005, which
prescribed the cutoff date for submission of applications as
11.03.2005. Nothing has been brought to the notice of either
the Writ Court or this Court by the appellant to show that
any advertisement notification other than the one issued in
February, 2005, was issued by the official respondents
pursuant to which the appellant applied for the post of
Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi Centre, Malti. The Vigilance
Commission, in its order dated 23.01.2014, has also
observed that the appellant as well as other candidates had
never applied for the post of Anganwadi Helper. The
appellant has not been able to establish that she applied
pursuant to advertisement notification dated 17.02.2005.
We have no hesitation to hold that the appellant was a back
LPA No.222/2025 5|Page
door appointee who managed her engagement through
illegal means.
11) It is equally true that no opportunity of hearing was
afforded to the appellant before issuance of order of
disengagement but the principle of 'audi alteram partem'
does not operate in isolation to the facts involved in the
case. Had she been afforded any opportunity of hearing, the
result would have been the same.
12) Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the
denial of opportunity of hearing to the appellant before
passing the order impugned would not have changed the
fate of the case of the appellant. Even otherwise, once the
engagement of the appellant is found to be illegal, obtained
by illegal means, the appellant is not required to be heard in
any manner whatsoever. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Jainendra Singh vs. State of UP, (2012) 8 SCC 748,
has held as under:
"Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be
legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the
employer or could be recalled by the employer and in
such cases merely because the respondent employee
has continued in service for a number of years, on the
basis of such fraudulently obtained employment,
cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel
against the employer."
13) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar and
others vs. State of Bihar and others, (1997) 2 SCC 1, has
LPA No.222/2025 6|Page
observed that none of the illegal appointees has any right to
continue as whole exercise was an unauthorized adventure.
14) In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'State of
Manipur v. Y. Token Singh, (2007) 5 SCC 65' it has been
observed and held as under:
16. The offers of appointment issued in favour of the
respondents herein were cancelled inter alia on the
premise that the same had been done without the
knowledge of the Revenue Department of the State.
No records there for were available with the State. As
noticed hereinbefore, an inquiry had been made
wherein the said Shri Tayeng, the then Commissioner
of Revenue stated that no such appointment had been
made to his knowledge. The State proceeded on the
said basis. The offers of appointment were cancelled
not on the ground that some irregularities had been
committed in the process of recruitment but on the
ground that they had been non est in the eye of the
law. The purported appointment letters were fake
ones. They were not issued by any authority
competent there for.
17. If the offers of appointments issued in favour of the
respondents herein were forged documents, the State
could not have been compelled to pay salaries to them
from the State exchequer. Any action, which had not
been taken by an authority competent there for and in
complete violation of the constitutional and legal
framework, would not be binding on the State. In any
event, having regard to the fact that the said authority
himself had denied to have issued a letter, there was
no reason for the State not to act pursuant thereto or
in furtherance thereof. The action of the State did not,
thus, lack bona fides.
18. Moreover, it was for the respondents who had filed
the writ petitions to prove existence of legal right in
their favour. They had inter alia prayed for issuance of
a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. It was, thus,
for them to establish existence of a legal right in their
favour and a corresponding legal duty in the
respondents to continue to be employed. With a view
to establish their legal rights to enable the High Court
to issue a writ of mandamus, the respondents were
obligated to establish that the appointments had been
LPA No.222/2025 7|Page
made upon following the constitutional mandate
adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. They have not been able to show that any
advertisement had been issued inviting applications
from eligible candidates to fill up the said posts. It has
also not been shown that the vacancies had been
notified to the employment exchange.
22.The respondents, therefore, in our opinion, were
not entitled to hold the posts. In a case of this nature,
where the facts are admitted, the principles of natural
justice were not required to be complied with,
particularly when the same would result in futility-----
(emphasis added)
15) The same position has been reiterated in State of
Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad, (2019) 13 SCC 250,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the
appointment is illegal from its inception, such employee is
not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the
Constitution. Paras 15 and 16 of the said judgment are
reproduced as under:
15. In State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty,
(2011) 3 SCC 436, this Court has held that once an
order of appointment itself had been bad at the time of
initial appointment, it cannot be sanctified at a later
stage. It was held thus:
"68(i) The procedure prescribed under the 1974
Rules has not been followed in all the cases
while making the appointment of the
respondents/ teachers at initial stage. Some of
the persons had admittedly been appointed
merely by putting some note on the notice board
of the College. Some of these teachers did not
face the interview test before the Selection
Board. Once an order of appointment itself had
been bad at the time of initial appointment, it
cannot be sanctified at a later stage". (Emphasis
supplied)
16. In the instant cases the writ petitioners have filed
the petitions before the High Court with a specific
prayer to regularize their service and to set aside the
order of termination of their services. They have also
LPA No.222/2025 8|Page
challenged the report submitted by the State
Committee. The real controversy is whether the writ
petitioners were legally and validly appointed. The
finding of the State Committee is that many writ
petitioners had secured appointment by producing
fake or forged appointment letter or had been inducted
in Government service surreptitiously by concerned
Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer by issuing a
posting order. The writ petitioners are the beneficiaries
of illegal orders made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief
Medical Officer. They were given notice to establish the
genuineness of their appointment and to show cause.
None of them could establish the genuineness or
legality of their appointment before the State
Committee. The State Committee on appreciation of
the materials on record has opined that their
appointment was illegal and void ab initio. We do not
find any ground to disagree with the finding of the State
Committee. In the circumstances, the question of
regularisation of their services by invoking para 53 of
the judgment in Umadevi (supra) does not arise. Since
the appointment of the petitioners is ab initio void, they
cannot be said to be the civil servants of the State.
Therefore, holding disciplinary proceedings envisaged
by Article 311 of the Constitution or under any other
disciplinary rules shall not arise.
16) We have examined the judgment passed by the learned
Writ Court which is well-reasoned and lucid not warranting
any interference at our end.
17) The appeal is found to be misconceived and is
dismissed accordingly along with connected CM(s).
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Srinagar
15.10.2025
"Bhat Altaf"
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes
LPA No.222/2025 9|Page
