HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU SWP No. 832/2007 Pinky Devi …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Navdeep Kour, Advocate. vs State of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG Ms. Garima Gupta, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 09.07.2025 ORAL 1. The petitioner, in the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has pleaded that an advertisement notice came to be issued by the official respondents for engagement of Anganwadi Worker in different Anganwadi Centres including the Anganwadi Centre Kanwal Malani and the petitioner being possessed of the eligibility prescribed therein the advertisement notice, responded to the same and upon being subjected to the process of selection undertaken by the Selection Committee constituted by the official respondents, on the basis of merit, came to be selected and consequently appointed in terms of appointment order No. CDPO/G/2005-06/1163-67 dated 14.02.2006, consequent to which, the petitioner joined her duties on 14.02.2006 itself at Anganwadi Centre Kanwal Malani. It is next stated that despite the said proper, valid selection and appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Serial No. 12 2 SWP No. 832/2007 Worker, the official respondents did not permit her to perform her duties, which compelled the petitioner to file SWP No. 665/2006 before this Court, wherein in terms of interim order dated 17.04.2006, the respondents came to be directed to allow the petitioner to perform her duties, whereafter the petitioner was permitted to discharge her duties and was also paid honorarium, however, subsequently, the official respondents in contravention of rules and regulations appointed the private respondent 5 herein as Anganwadi Worker in place of the petitioner in terms of order No. CDPO/G/2006-07/83-87 dated 23.05.2006 that too in presence of the interim order dated 17.04.2006 passed by the Court in SWP (Supra) filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged order dated 23.05.2006 (Supra) on the following grounds:- a) That the order impugned dated 23.05.2006 whereby, the private respondent has been shown appointed on the post on which the petitioner is working till date is bad in the eyes of law and is required to be set aside and quashed. b) That the petitioner is performing her duties pursuant to the appointment order as Anganwari Worker being appointed by the competent authority. The petitioner belonging to Village Kamwal Malani and after her marriage she is residing with her parents in her own home alongwith her husband. The husband of the petitioner is Ghar Jamai. c) That the villagers have submitted a resolution with regard to the working of the petitioner at Anganwari Center Kamwal Malani where the petitioner has been appointed. The private respondent in favour of whom, the respondents have issued appointment order dated 23.05.2006 is not the resident of the village Karwal Malani whereas, as per the copy of the khasra Girdawari of village Harsat Block Gagwal, the private respondent has been shown as the native of the village Harsat whereas the petitioner has been appointed in village Karwal Malani. The private respondent has married to one Sohan Lal. The parents of the private respondent have died and keeping in view the circumstances prevailing in the family of the private respondent, she, after the death of her parents, for the last-so many years, is residing in her parental home alongwith her- 3 SWP No. 832/2007 husband and is taking care of the property of her parents. The aforementioned facts clearly reveals that private respondent is not the resident of village Karwal Malani but she is the resident of village Harsath and as such the issuance of appointment order in favour of the private respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the respondents, as such the order impugned is required to be set aside and quashed. For the perusal of this Hon'ble court, copy of the Khasra Girdawari is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE- F. d) That during the service of the petitioner- she under gone Anganwadi Workers job training course from Model Institute of Education and Research, Jammu and successfully qualified the aforesaid course on dated 09.03.2007 and in this regard she has been issued certificate which is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE- "G" e) That the order impugned dated 23.05.2006 issued by the respondents in favour of the private respondent herein is not sustainable in the eyes of law as she cannot be appointed on the post against which the petitioner has been validly appointed and performing her services and also drawing her honorarium. The private respondent is the blue-eyed person of the official respondents and as such in order to dislodge the claim of the petitioner, the order impugned has been issued which is in utter disregard of the eligibility condition stipulated in the advertisement notice, contrary to the rules and regulations. f) That the petitioner being working pursuant to appointment order and the respondents, as till date no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner with regard to her appointment. The order of appointment is intact; as such the action of the respondents is not sustainable under law. The petitioner has been permitted to perform her services in view of the interim order dated 17.04.2006 passed in SWP No. 665/2006 which was filed by the petitioner when the respondent did not allow the petitioner to perform her services. 3. Objections have been filed by the respondent 5 to the petitioner, which objections have been adopted by the official respondents as objections to the petition on their behalf as well in terms of order dated 18.04.2022 passed by this Court. 4. In the said objections filed to the petition, it is being stated that the petitioner got herself selected as Anganwadi Worker for the centre in question by misrepresenting herself to be resident of village Kanwal 4 SWP No. 832/2007 Malani, while suppressing the fact that she had married to one Radhey Sham S/O Sh. Jagan Nath of Village Chhan Dayal and as such, had ceased to be the resident of village Kanwal Malani and that since the appointment secured by the petitioner vide appointment order dated 14.02.2006 was against the terms and conditions set out in the said appointment order, as such, said selection and appointment of the petitioner was liable to be terminated. It is being next stated that upon a representation filed by the answering respondent 5 herein against the selection and appointment of the petitioner, respondent 3 ordered holding of an enquiry vide order dated 10.03.2006 while staying the performance of duties by the petitioner, however, the petitioner suppressed the fact of said enquiry and filed SWP No. 665/2006 (Supra) without impleading the answering respondent 5 herein as party therein the said petition and obtained the interim relief therein the said petition on 17.04.2006, pursuant to which interim order, the petitioner was allowed to perform her services as Anganwadi Worker. It is being next stated that the appointment order dated 23.05.2006 (Supra) came to be issued in favour of the answering respondent 5 herein only after conclusion of the enquiry initiated in the matter by the official respondents pertaining to the residence of the petitioner, which enquiry report came against the petitioner. It is being next stated that the petitioner concocted the story of her being residing in her father’s house with her husband brought as Ghar Jamai after her 5 SWP No. 832/2007 marriage in order to continue to work as Anganwadi Worker in the centre in question despite being not eligible. It is being further stated that the husband of the answering respondent 5 herein, namely, Sohan Lal is the permanent resident of Village Kanwal Malani and that the answering respondent 5 herein is the permanent resident of village Kanwal Malani and as such, eligible for the post of Anganwadi Worker in the Anganwadi Centre in question even after her marriage. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record produced by the counsel for the official respondents pertaining to the case in question in compliance to the order dated 14.11.2024. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, whereunder the petitioner herein claims to have got engaged as Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Centre Kanwal Malani on the basis of her superior merit, as also being resident of the village Kanwal Malani, notwithstanding of her marriage with Sh. Radhey Sham of village Chhan Dayal and on the contrary, according to the respondent 5 herein, the said plea of the petitioner is an afterthought and there has been sufficient material found by the official respondents suggesting that the petitioner had got married to the said Radhey Sham of Village Chhan Dayal and stands recorded in the Ration Ticket of her husband in the village Chhan Dayal, as also that the particulars of her husband stand entered into the voter list of the said village, the petitioner could not have been selected and appointed in the centre in question and yet perusal of the record of enquiry produced by the counsel for the 6 SWP No. 832/2007 official respondents tends to show that the official respondents though claim to have issued a notice to the petitioner prior to her joining as Anganwadi Worker in the Anganwadi Centre in question pursuant to her engagement order on the premise that her selection and appointment has been objected to by the private respondent 5 herein, yet the said notice only called upon the petitioner to explain her position. A closer examination of the said record, however, reveals that despite the petitioner’s having submitted a reply thereto the said notice, the official respondents have failed to conduct any sort of enquiry in the matter associating both the petitioner as well as the private respondent 5 therein the said enquiry. 6. It is significant to mention here that since the petitioner herein came to be allowed to join as Anganwadi Worker pursuant to her engagement order by the official respondents pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in the writ petition SWP No. 665/2006 (Supra) filed by the petitioner, however, the said writ petition have had got dismissed in default, whereupon the said dismissal, the respondent 5 herein came to be engaged by the official respondents in terms of the impugned order in place of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker and the respondent 5 consequently joined and is working as on date as Anganwadi Worker in the centre in question. 7. Be that as it may, since it has been noticed and observed from perusal of the record that the official respondents did not conduct any enquiry in the matter in order to resolve the controversy inter se the petitioner and the respondent 5 herein, so much so, did not chose to file an 7 SWP No. 832/2007 independent reply to the instant petition but adopted the reply filed by the private respondent 5 herein to the petition, as such, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the instant petition, without making any observation or recording ay finding qua the case set out by the petitioner against the private respondent 5 and vice versa, as follows: i. Deputy Commissioner, Samba is directed to get an enquiry in the matter conducted by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner to ascertain and verify as to whether the petitioner herein have had been actually upon her marriage residing in her father’s house in village Kanwal Malani on the date of issuance of advertisement notice dated 07.02.2005 issued by the Directorate of Social Welfare, Jammu for making selection and appointment against the post of Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Kanwal Malani, Samba. ii. The enquiry officer shall associate the petitioner as well as the respondent 5 herein in the said enquiry and provide them ample opportunity to submit their respective case (s) besides furnishing any documentary evidence thereof. iii. After completion of the said enquiry as directed above, the enquiry officer shall submit the report to the Deputy Commissioner, Samba, who shall forward the same along with the findings thereof the said enquiry to the District Programme Officer, ICDS, Samba, who shall thereafter issue necessary orders in favour of the eligible candidate. 8 SWP No. 832/2007 iv. Till such time the aforesaid enquiry and consequential orders are passed as directed above, the present status of the respondent 5 herein shall not be disturbed and the same shall, however, be subject to passing of fresh orders as directed above. 8. Record produced by the counsel for the official respondents is returned back in the open court. 9. Disposed of. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE Jammu 09.07.2025 Sahil Padha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No. Sahil Padha 2025.07.15 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document