AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(1) The appeal is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
(2) The appellant before us has assailed the order dated 23.04.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No.1969/2013, whereby the writ petition filed by writ petitioner, namely, Ms. Meema Bano (private respondent No.5 before us), was allowed.
(3) The factual narration giving rise to the filing of the instant appeal is that in the year 2005, the respondent No.2 invited applications from the eligible candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Workers in various blocks of Kashmir Division on Panchayat Halqa basis with minimum basic qualification of Matriculation, from the persons aged between 21 to 40 years. The appellant and private respondent No.5 claimed to have basic academic qualification of Matric, had applied in terms of the said Notification. It appears that private respondent No.5 herein was selected as Anganwadi Worker and, accordingly, an order of her engagement was issued on 25.07.2005.
(4) It appears that certain complaints regarding the appointment of private respondent No.5 were made for initiation of action for terminating the services of private respondent No.5. It was contended in the complaints that immediately after the engagement of the private respondent No.5, she was married outside the block Lar, for which she was appointed. The private respondent No.5 assailed the action contemplated to be taken by the official respondents in terminating the services of the writ petitioner in SWP No.1969/2013.
(5) The appellant before us has made a grievance that she was a necessary and proper party for complete and necessary adjudication and the appellant was required to be arrayed as party respondent in SWP No.1969/2013.
(6) The present appellant had filed an appeal against the engagement of private respondent No.5, namely, Ms.Meema Bano, before the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal. The said appeal was considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, who by an order dated 30.10.2013 had opined as under:-
"Perused the record placed on the file. I am of the considered opinion, that as Respondent No.6 Meema Bano W/o Mohd. Yousuf Magray R/o Kachan Ganderbal having changed her residence after engagement/appointment forfeits her claim for her engagement on the said post, therefore her appointment/engagement is set aside. Again the appellant working as ASHA worker in the Health Department cannot be considered for engagement on the said post in absence of accepted resignation from the Health department, therefore, she also loses her claim in the instant appeal, and thus appeal is dismissed on this count. The District Programme Officer, ICDS Ganderbal is directed to make fresh advertisement for the said post. The file be consigned to records after due completion."
(7) Aggrieved by the above order, both the appellant as well as private respondent No.5 filed separate writ petitions challenging the same. The private respondent No.5 claims that on or before 14.11.2013 she had filed writ petition being SWP No.220/2013, while the appellant had filed SWP No.2275/2013 on or before 21.11.2013.
(8) It is admitted by Mr. N. A. Beigh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Akeel Ahmad Parde, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of official respondents that there is no stay of order dated 30.10.2013 in these petitions.
(9) It is submitted by Mr. M. S. Reshi, learned counsel for respondent No.5 that an order of status quo has been passed by this Court in SWP No.1969/2013. The above narration would show that by order dated 30.10.2013, the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, had directed the District Programme Officer, ICDS, Ganderbal, to initiate fresh selection process and to issue fresh advertisement for the said post. The order of status quo would have been operative in this context alone and the same cannot permit the private respondent No.5 to continue in appointment.
(10) Given the fact that the challenge to the order dated 30.10.2013 was pending by way of SWP No.220/2013 and SWP No.2275/2013, which related to the appointment pursuant to the selection process initiated in the year 2005, whereas SWP No.1969/2013, which related to the engagement of respondent No.5, after the selection process was over, all the three writ petitions deserved to be heard and considered together.
(11) Mr. N. A. Beigh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that private respondent No.5 is guilty of gross suppression of material fact inasmuch as order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, was never placed before the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing on 23.04.2015. We find substance in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The fact that the appointment of respondent No.5 stood set aside by order dated 30.10.2013 was a material fact, which had not been placed before the Court by the respondent No.5 in the writ petition being SWP No.1969/2013.
(12) In view of the above, the order dated 23.04.2015, directing the respondents to allow the writ petitioner (respondent No.5 herein) to continue to work as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Darakpora, ICDS Project, Lar, is unwarranted and not sustainable. The impugned order dated 23.04.2015 passed in SWP No.1969/2013, is consequently quashed and the matter is remanded for hearing afresh to the learned Single Judge.
(13) It is further directed that SWP No.220/2013, SWP No.2275/2013 and SWP No.1969/2013 shall be taken up and heard together for the purpose of consideration and adjudication.
(14) This appeal is allowed in the above terms.