Jammu Kashmir: HC Upholds NHM Selection, Dismisses Challenge Over Marriage Status | Kashmir Life

JAMMU: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a seven-year-old service writ petition challenging the selection of a Female Multi Purpose Health Worker (FMPHW) under the National Health Mission (NHM) in Doda district, holding that the authorities had rightly preferred a local candidate in accordance with the applicable preference norms.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, while pronouncing the oral judgment, rejected the petition filed by Sushma Devi, who had questioned the final selection list dated April 28, 2018, through which another candidate was appointed to the FMPHW post at Sub-Centre Seel, Block Ghat, District Doda.

The case arose out of an advertisement issued in March 2015 for para-medical posts under NHM in Doda. The petitioner, who possessed the requisite qualifications, was provisionally selected for the post after interviews held in September 2017 and had secured significantly higher merit than the private respondent.

However, following objections raised by the selected candidate, the authorities issued a final selection list replacing the petitioner. The objection was based on the claim that the petitioner had married outside the district and was no longer a resident of the village concerned, making her ineligible under the revised preference clause introduced through a corrigendum dated May 3, 2017.

The petitioner argued that merit had been completely ignored, that she continued to reside with her parents in her native village despite marriage, and that the objections against her were decided without giving her a hearing, violating principles of natural justice. She also relied on a Panchayatnama to support her claim of residence.

The official respondents, on the other hand, justified the change in selection by citing an inquiry conducted on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner. The inquiry found that the petitioner had married a resident of Jammu city and was not shown as a family member in her father’s ration card or voter list after marriage. The authorities also relied on NHM norms and the revised preference clause favouring candidates residing in the village served by the health institution.

The Court noted that while the petitioner admitted her marriage outside the district, she failed to place any credible documentary evidence—apart from the Panchayatnama—to establish continued residence in the village. In contrast, official records such as the ration card, voter list, Aadhaar details, and the Tehsildar’s inquiry report supported the respondents’ stand.

Justice Wani held that the Panchayatnama alone could not outweigh official documentary records. The Court further observed that the inquiry report had not been challenged by the petitioner and that the preference clause, as amended by the corrigendum, had been correctly applied.

On the issue of delay in the selection process, the Court accepted the respondents’ explanation that the process had remained stalled due to pending litigation and found no material to suggest mala fides on part of the authorities.

Concluding that the provisional selection of the petitioner was rightly modified and that the private respondent had been lawfully selected, the High Court dismissed the writ petition along with all connected applications.

The judgment has been marked as a speaking order, reinforcing the principle that residence-based preference clauses, when backed by official records and due inquiry, can override higher merit in specific localised NHM appointments.