Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Anju Sharma vs < on 30 December, 2022
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal, Puneet Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 20.12.2022
Pronounced on 30.12.2022
LPA No. 49/2020 (O&M)
Anju Sharma ...Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Monish Chopra, Advocate
v/s <
Sunita Kumari and others .....Respondent (s)
't
Through :- Mr. P. N. Bhat, Advocate for No. 1
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Per Oswal-J
1. In this writ petition, the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) had challenged order dated 30.11.2011, whereby the appellant was temporarily transferred as Worker from Anganwadi Centre, Thumba Garn Nalla to Anganwadi Centre Makol against an available vacancy till further orders, where the respondent No. 1 had been working as Helper since 2006 and further prayed for directing the official respondents to accord consideration to the case of the writ petitioner for her conversion/promotion from Anganwari helper to Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre Makol Ward No. 3 Halqa Panchayat Nallah.
2. The aforesaid order was impugned by the respondent No. 1 before the writ court on the ground that the appellant was temporally engaged as Worker for 2 LPA No. 49/2020 a period of sixty days at Anganwari Centre, Thumba Garn Nalla and thereafter her engagement was extended from time to time and vide order dated 30.11.2011 she managed temporarily engagement by way of transfer in Anganwadi Centre Makol. It was also pleaded that the appellant was not the resident of Makol but she managed her temporarily engagement in Anganwadi Centre, Makol. It was also the case of the respondent No. 1 that she was required to be considered for her conversion/promotion from Anganwadi Helper to Anganwadi Worker in the Anganwadi Centre Makol.
3. The learned writ court vide judgment dated 05.03.2020 disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 and the appellant being aggrieved of the impugned the judgment dated 05.03.2020, has impugned the same inter alia on the grounds that no notice was served upon the appellant, as such, she has been condemned unheard by the writ court and further there was no justifiable reason before the writ court for quashing the engagement order of the appellant just on the oral submissions of respondent No. 1, more particularly when she had been married in the village Makol.
4. Mr. Monish Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the appellant by the learned writ court and further when her appointment order was not impugned by anyone, so her engagement could not have been quashed by the writ court.
5. Mr. P. N. Bhat, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) vehemently argued that the appellant could not have been transferred to the post of Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Makol and further that her engagement was only temporary though extended from time to time. 3 LPA No. 49/2020
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. The first contention raised by the appellant is that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the appellant and a perusal of the record reveals that the notice was issued to the appellant through registered post but no one appeared on behalf of the appellant to oppose the writ petition. The official respondents too did not file the objections and the learned writ court on the basis of record available, disposed of the said writ petition. It is not the case of the appellant that no notice was issued to the appellant, rather in the writ petition, the address of the appellant has been mentioned as has been mentioned in the instant appeal, so there is no force in the contention of the appellant that no opportunity of being heard was granted to her by the learned writ court, as such, the said contention is rejected. Even otherwise, it would not effect the merits of the case.
8. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant was engaged as Anganwadi worker temporarily at Anganwadi Centre Thumba Garn Nalla for a period of sixty days or till selection is made by the District Selection Committee, whichever is earlier. Her temporary engagement continued to be extended but vide order dated 30.11.2011, she was temporarily transferred to Anganwadi Centre Makol. It is not the case of the appellant that she was engaged for Anganwadi Centre Makol but rather a perusal of the order dated 30.11.2011 reveals that she was temporarily transferred to Anganwadi Centre Makol. The contention of the appellant is that she was married in Village Makol but the perusal of order dated 30.11.2011 reveals that her parentage has been reflected as Amar Nath and her residence as been mentioned as Nahoti Nallah. Appellant could not demonstrate that she could 4 LPA No. 49/2020 have been transferred to the Anganwadi Centre Makol from Anganwadi Centre, Thumba Garn Nalla particularly when she was engaged as worker at Anganwari Centre Thumba Garn Nalla. Thus, there is no infirmity in the finding returned by the writ court that engagement of the appellant as worker at Anganwari Centre Makol was not sustainable.
9. The other contention raised by the appellant is that without any formal challenge thrown to her appointment, the learned writ court has quashed her appointment. In order to appreciate this contention, it is apt to reproduce the directions issued by the learned writ court vide judgment dated 05.03.2020:
"In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondents to take effective steps for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker in the Anganwari Centre after following the prescribed procedure i.e invitation of applications and considering all the eligible candidates in terms of the governing ICDS rules and regulations. Ordered accordingly. However, till the regular selection process is concluded and eligible candidate on the basis of merit is appointed, the Centre aforesaid shall be manned by the petitioner, who shall work as Anganwari Worker on the same terms and conditions on which respondent No.5 had been working. This would mean that temporary engagement of respondent No.5, who is rank outsider in the village, shall stand terminated. Official respondents to take requisite steps and conclude the selection process within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available."
10. A perusal of the directions by the writ court demonstrates that the learned writ court has not in fact terminated the engagement of the appellant but has in fact quashed her transfer at Anganwadi Centre Makol.
11. In view of all what has been discussed above, we do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned writ court, however, we dispose of this appeal with clarification that the engagement of the appellant as Worker by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has not been quashed 5 LPA No. 49/2020 by the writ court but only her transfer though temporary to the Anganwadi Centre, Makol is quashed.
12. The official respondents shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders with regard to the engagement and posting of the appellant in accordance with rules.
13. Disposed of.
(PUNEET GUPTA) (RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
JAMMU
30.12.2022
Rakesh
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No