Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Santosh Kumari vs State Of J&K; And Others on 12 July, 2017
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Sanjay Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
LPASW No. 13/2017, MP No. 1/2017.
Date of order: 12.07.2017
Santosh Kumari Vs State of J&K and ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Judge
Appearing Counsel:
For the appellants(s) : Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Ved Bhushan Gupta, Advocate.
(Oral) Per: D. S. Thakur -J
1. Petitioner and the private respondent both responded the advertisement notice dated 09.03.2013 for the post of Female Multi Purpose Health Worker (FMPHW) for the Sub Centre Daulka, falling in Tehsil Bani, District Kathua.
2. According to the criteria fixed for making the selection in the advertisement notice, preference had to be given to the candidates, who belong to the same village in which the Sub Centre was located. The advertisement notice has its genesis in the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Scheme prepared by the Government of India, which has been clarified from time to time by the Government of India and also the Mission Director, NRHM, J&K. LPASW No. 13/2017 Page 1 of 5
3. According to the NRHM Scheme, in case of non-
availability of the candidates within the village/ block/tehsil, the candidates from the adjoining village/block/tehsil but within the district were to be given preference. A clarification notice in this regard was issued by the Mission Director, NRHM, J&K vide his communication dated 11.01.2013. According the said communication, the local criteria as per the Government of India's guidelines imply local residents within the district/tehsil/block/village, based upon availability.
4. In the present case, it appears that no candidate was available from the village, where the Sub- Centre existed and, therefore, the official respondents selected private respondent No. 6, who belongs to the same block in which the Sub- Centre exists. The petitioner not being satisfied with this action of the official respondents in selecting the private respondent herein, filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2900/2014, challenging the same on the ground that the official respondents had not followed the principle of local criteria in its letter and spirit and had acted contrary to the Scheme prepared by the Government of India in this regard.
LPASW No. 13/2017 Page 2 of 55. It was urged that in case of non-availability of a candidate from the village, where the Sub-Centre existed, the candidate like the petitioner who belong to the adjoining village ought to have been considered with a view to fulfill the commitment of employing Female Multi Purpose Health Workers on the basis of local criteria.
6. This contention of the petitioner, however did not find favour with the learned Single Judge, who vide his judgment and order dated 09.12.2016 dismissed the writ petition. It is in those circumstances that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred.
7. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same grounds, as had been advanced by him before the Writ Court to bring home the point that the local criteria could be satisfied only if the official respondents had first considered the candidates from the adjoining village in the event of non-availability of a suitable candidate from the village, where the Sub-Centre existed.
8. We are unable to get pursuaded on the aforementioned argument reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even as per the communication of the Mission Director, NRHM, J&K, as also the clarification issued by the Under LPASW No. 13/2017 Page 3 of 5 Secretary to the Government of India dated 14.05.2010, the local criteria implies only residence within the village/block/tehsil/district.
9. From the above, it is thus clear that in the event of non-availability of a suitable candidate at the village level, the zone of consideration had then to be extended to the block within the same tehsil and failure to find suitable candidates or non- availability of the candidates in the same block, the zone of consideration had to be extended at the tehsil level within the same district. Only in the event that the selection agency did not have any suitable candidate at the district level then, the selection had to be made from the adjoining village/block/tehsil or the adjoining district, as the case may be.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the method and manner of selection by the official respondents infact defeats the local criteria guideline issued by the Government of India. However, this argument is legally untenable. The interpretation of the local criteria has been clarified even by the Government of India through the communication dated 14.05.2010 and by the Mission Director, NRHM, J&K.
11. The learned Single Judge appears to have rightly come to a conclusion that in the absence of any LPASW No. 13/2017 Page 4 of 5 challenge being thrown to the local criteria framed by the official respondents, it would be difficult for the petitioner to challenge the selection made by the official respondents.
12. Be that as it may, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected MP(s).
(Sanjay Kumar Gupta) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
Jammu
12.07.2017
(Muneesh)
LPASW No. 13/2017 Page 5 of 5