Anita Devi v. State Th.Social Welfare Deptt.And Ors

ORDER

30.05.2025

¶1Petitioner, having been aggrieved of the select list issued vide No.DIP/J-9749 dated 04.03.2014 with regard to Anganwari Workers, has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- "Certiorari:- Quashing select list No.DIP/J-9749 dated 04.03.2014 qua Anganwari Centre Jhatgali-B issued by respondent No.4,

Sr. No.25

whereby respondent No.5 was proposed for her engagement as Anganwari Worker in the aforementioned Centre. Mandamus:- Commanding the respondents more particularly respondent No.4 to accord consideration to the objections dated

12.03.2014 filed by the petitioner before finalizing the selection process for the engagement of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Jhatgali-B and also provide opportunity of being heard to the petitioner prior to finalization of selection process in question. Commanding the respondents to engage the petitioner as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Jhatgli-B as it is only the petitioner who is eligible in all respects for her engagement as Anganwari Worker in the aforementioned Centre."

¶2There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner today.

¶3Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that respondent No.5 was more meritorious, in academics, as compared to the petitioner and has thus, been selected; that the petitioner was not a resident of the local area to be eligible for appointment against the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Jhatgali-B. In support of his submissions, he states that respondent No.5, who was selected, had obtained 240 out of 500 marks in matriculation, whereas petitioner had secured 210 out of 500 marks; that respondent No.5 was a resident of Hatti Morh, which falls within Panchayat Jhatgali-B where the Anganwari Centre was situated. As such, the respondents have not committed any wrong or illegality in selecting respondent No.5 against the post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre Jhatgali-B

¶5Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for official respondents and the pleadings on record, it is clear that petitioner was less meritorious than respondent No.5 in academic qualification and respondent No.5 was also a resident of local area to be eligible for consideration of selection. Therefore, there appears no illegality or irregularity committed by the official respondents.

¶6The petition is, thus, found to be without any substance and is accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s). Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated.

( M A Chowdhary ) Judge

JAMMU

30.05.2025 Narinder

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH ATJAMMU IA No.1189/2014 Anita Devi, Age 21 years W/O Sh. Ajit Singh, R/O Hamlet (Mohra) Jhatgali-B, Hiller, Tehsil and District Ramban. .....Petitioner(s) Through :- None. v/s 1. The State of Jammu & Kashmir Through its Commissioner/Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Jammu. 3. The Programme Officer, ICDS Projects, Ramban. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Ramban. 5. Asha Devi, D/O Karam Chand, R/O Village Hatti Morh, Tehsil and District Ramban. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG with Ms Pallvi Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE