news details |
|
|
| HC stayed the disengagement of petitioner | | |
JAMMU, APRIL 24,
Justice Nirmal Singh of J&K High Court Jammu wing in a writ petition challenging the disengagement of petitioner as Anganwari worker, issued notice to state of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary social Welfare, Director social Welfare Jammu, program Officer ICDS Project Kathua, Child Development Project Officer Kathua, Selection Committee POJCDS Projects District Kathua through its Chairman and private respondents and after hearing Advocate Vikram Singh appearing for the petitioner, operation of orders impugned March 15 & 16, 2007 shall remain stayed and petitioner shall be allowed to continue as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Center Ward No 6 Kathua till further orders. Court, however, clarified that this is subject to the objections by the other side which shall be within 2 weeks.
According to the petitioner that a panel was prepared by the official respondents for selection to the post of Anganwari workers in Anganwari center Ward No 6 Kathua. Private respondents Renu Bala who was higher in merit was shown to be provisionally selected for the said post. As she did not join within 21 days, the selection would be deemed to have been cancelled and her appointment was cancelled. The petitioner who was next in merit was appointed vide order dated May 15, 2006 and in pursuance to the said order, the petitioner joined her services. It is further submitted that vide impugned order the engagement of the petitioner has been cancelled without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and a fresh order of appointment has been issued in favour Renu Bala who earlier had not chosen to join the service within the stipulated period.
While staying the disengagement order of the petitioner, Justice Nirmal Singh observed that the court is of the opinion that the stand taken by Adv RS Mehta appearing for the private respondent cannot be accepted as on the one hand, it is stated that private respondent was not aware of her selection and on the other it is being stated that the said respondent had been making representations before the concerned authorities. However, without commenting upon this aspect of the matter at this stage the court is of the view that once the petitioner who was the next candidate in the merit list had been engaged due to the non-joining of service by the private respondents within the stipulated period, the services of the petitioner cannot be disengaged without affording her any opportunity of being heard. With these observations court stayed the impugned orders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
