Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Naseem Akhter vs State Of J&K; And Others on 9 November, 2017
Author: Tashi Rabstan
Bench: Tashi Rabstan
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SWP No. 1709/2008, MP No. 2432/2008.
Date of order: 09.11.2017
Naseem Akhter
Vs
State of J&K and others
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan, Judge
Appearance:
For the petitioner (s) : None.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG.
(Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed in the year 2008.
2. Through the medium of the instant writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks quashment of the selection of respondent No. 6 as Anganwari Worker, issued by the respondent No. 5 vide order dated 22.09.2008 for Anganwari Centre Peer Kagli Panch Ward No. 2, Panchayat Dara Sangla. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of Anganwari Worker on the ground that she is more meritorious than respondent No. 6.
3. Objections have been filed by the official respondents, wherein it is stated that respondent No. 6 was also interviewed by the Selection Committee consisting of District Social Welfare Officer as Convener, Block Development Officer, Medical Officer as Members and concerned Child Development Project Officer as Member Secretary. Respondent No. 6 has secured 44.53 points, whereas the petitioner has secured only 44.10 points in the selection process. It is further stated that the selection has SWP No. 1709/2008 Page 1 of 2 been made in accordance with the criteria prescribed for such an appointments and no illegality has been committed in making the selections.
4. The petitioner pursuant to the said criteria fixed by the official respondents participated in the selection process and after having found not selected filed the instant writ petition challenging the same selection process. Besides that having voluntarily participated in the selection process, it is not open to the petitioner to turn around and to challenge the same.
5. It is well settled that having participated in a process of selection without any demur, an unsuccessful candidate is estopped from challenging the criteria of selection. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 and in the case of Dhananjay Malik and ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors. (2008) 14 SCC 454. On this ground also the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
6. In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed along with connected MP.
7. Interim direction(s), if any, shall also stand vacated.
( Tashi Rabstan ) Judge Jammu 09.11.2017 (Muneesh) SWP No. 1709/2008 Page 2 of 2