HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU SWP No. 575/2006 Parmila Devi …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. S. C. Mansotra, Adv. vs Director Social Welfare Department and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Pallvi Sharma, Adv. vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAGfor Nos. 1 to 4 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDER 20.02.2025 Oral: 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the selection of the respondent No. 5 as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center for Upper Bhagwah, who was selected vide select list dated 22.12.2005 and directing the official respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to select and appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center for Upper Bhagwah. 2. The petitioner has challenged the select list on the grounds that the official respondents have illegally selected the respondent No. 5 who had got married to a village, namely, Prem Nagar which falls about 30 kms away from the ward/village in question i.e. Upper Bhagwah in another Tehsil Thathri, but still she was retained by the official 21 2 SWP No.575/2006 respondents in the select list. It is stated that the petitioner has permanently settled after her marriage in the said ward/village. 3. The petitioner claims to have submitted the objections against the select list published by the official respondents, whereby respondent No. 5 was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center Upper Bhagwah. 4. Respondent No. 3 has filed the response stating therein that the Advertisement Notification was issued on 17.02.2005 by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 5 was possessing higher merit as compared to the petitioner, who was less meritorious as such, she was not selected by the official respondents for the post in question. It is also averred that at the time of issuance of above advertisement, the respondent No. 5 was unmarried as mentioned in the application form and other related papers submitted by the respondent No. 5 for selection as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Upper Bhagwah. 5. After considering the applications submitted by all the participants, the select list was issued on 22.12.2005 whereas the marriage of respondent No. 5 was solemnized on 06.03.2006 regarding which a certificate issued by the Pandit has been placed on record. 6. Mr. S. C. Mansotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the respondent No. 5 has been married to a person who is residing in a village which is at least 30 kms away from the Anganwadi Center in question as such, the petitioner has a better claim vis a vis the respondent No.5 for engagement as Anganwari worker in Anganwadi 3 SWP No.575/2006 Center Upper Bhagwah. Mr. Mansotra has further contended that the candidate must be permanent resident of the panchayat or ward/village where the Anganwadi Center is located. 7. Per contra, Ms. Pallvi Sharma, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for official respondents has vehemently argued that at the time when the respondent No. 5 applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker, she was the resident of the area where the Anganwadi Center Upper Bhagwah was located. Even if, she has solemnized marriage after the issuance of the select list, the same cannot have any effect on the selection of respondent No. 5. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. The record depicts that the petitioner was residing at Village Bhagwah, VPO Bhagwah, Tehsil and District Doda at the time of submission of her application for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Center Upper Bhagwah. The requirement of the Advertisement was that the candidate must be resident of the area where the Anganwadi Center is located. It is not denied by the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 was not residing at a place where the Anganwadi Center was located, at the time of submission of application by the respondent No.5. 10. The sole contention of the petitioner is that she has solemnized marriage as such, the candidate who is residing at a place where the Anganwadi Center is located has a better claim over a candidate who has married away from the Anganwadi Center. The contention of the petitioner has been taken note of by this Court only for the purpose of rejection 4 SWP No.575/2006 because as per the advertisement the only requirement is that the candidate must be the resident of the area/village where the Anganwadi Center is located and there is no bar of solemnizing the marriage after the selection as Anganwadi Worker, in a place other than the one where Anganwari Center is located. The official respondents are well within their power to ensure that the candidate who solemnises marriage after selection in a place other than where Anganwari center is located, performs her duty regularly. 11. Viewed thus, there is no merit in the petition and as such, the same is dismissed. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu: 20.02.2025 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable:Yes/No Rakesh Kumar 2025.02.27 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document