Serial No. 14 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1690/2023 CM(3907/2023) CM(4636/2024) CM(5887/2024) Suriya Begum … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Wani Manzoor, Advocate Vs. UT of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA. Mr. Shuja Ul Haq, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 03.01.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No. 5 as Helper/Aaya for Primary School Ganie Mohalla, Zafferkani, District Kupwara. She has also sought a direction upon the official respondents not to issue engagement order in favour of respondent No. 5, with a further direction to the Tehsildar, Zachaldara, District Kupwara to verify the Annual Income of the respondent No. 5, afresh. 2. It appears that an Advertisement notification No. ZEOV/SAMAGRA/947-68 dated 23.01.2023, was issued by respondent No. 3, whereby applications were invited from eligible female candidates for engagement as Aaya under ECCE for the year 2022-23 in enlisted schools within one week. It appears that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 responded to the said advertisement notification and participated in the selection process. After undertaking the selection process, the official respondents issued merit list, in which respondent No. 5 was shown at Serial No. 1, whereas the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 2 of the said list. 3. The grievances of the petitioner is that she despite being the poorest of the poor amongst the candidates, has been sidelined and placed at Serial No. 2 of the merit list. It has been contended that the inhabitants of the village have passed a resolution, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner is poor and deserves to be engaged as Aaya. It has further been contended that income of respondent No. 5 is much higher than that of the petitioner. Besides this, the petitioner also belongs to the Gujar Community and she has donated land for construction of the school building. Thus, she is more deserving than respondent No. 5 for being considered for engagement as Aaya. 4. The official respondents as well as respondent No. 5 have filed separate replies to the Writ petition. In their reply, the official respondents have submitted that after verification of income of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5, it was found that the income of both of the families is Rs. 42,000/- per annum and because of a tie between the petitioner and respondent No. 5, it was decided that the candidate who is having more age would be preferred over the younger candidate. It has been further submitted that on account of this, respondent No. 5 being elder to the petitioner was engaged as Aaya. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 6. As per the criteria for selection of Aayas, a candidate has to be a female person and a domicile of that particular village. She has to belong to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) Category as per income certificates and Ration Cards issued by the Competent Authority. She has to be physically and mentally fit as per the certificate issued by the concerned Medical Authority. The qualification of an Aaya has to be 8th pass and preference is to be given to the candidates from BPL/AAY category in the below mentioned order of priority; “(i) Divorced, (ii) Widow, (iii) Orphan, (iv) Poorest of the Poor in the village as per the income certificate issued by the concerned authority with proper date.” 7. The criteria further provides that age of the candidates has to be between 18 to 45 years. It also provides that in case of a tie, the elder candidate i.e., the candidate with more age has to be preferred/considered over the young candidates. 8. The contention of the petitioner that because there is a resolution of the villagers/inhabitants in her favour and because she has donated her land to the school building, as such, she has to be given preference is without any merit as the same is not the relevant criteria for selection as Aaya. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the income of petitioner’s family is less than that of family of respondent No. 5. In this regard, the material on record clearly suggests that income of both the two families is Rs. 42,000/- per annum. The income has been re-verified by the Tehsildar in terms of the directions passed by Lok Adalat presided by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara. The Tehsildar concerned has again came to the same conclusion. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 5 is elder in age to the petitioner. Therefore, official respondents were justified in breaking the tie between the petitioner and respondent No. 5, who have obtained equal points in the selection process, by resorting to age criteria. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 03.01.2025 “MIR ARIF”