HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU SWP No.111/2016 Date of pronouncement: 20.12.2025 Uploaded on : .12.2025 1. Ghulam Maryam Aged 20 Years D/o Saleema Bi R/o Balar Sagra Tehsil Mendhar District Poonch. 2. Rukhsana Kouser Aged 20 Years D/o Mohd. Azam R/o Sagra Tehsil Mendhar District Poonch. 3. Naseem Akhter Aged 27 years W/o Mohd. Shakeel R/o Chajjla Tehsil Mendhar District Poonch. ..... Petitioner(s) Through :- None v/s 1. State of Jammu and Kashmir, through Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of J&K, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. The Director Social Welfare Department, Jammu 3. State Mission Director, ICDS, J&K Government, Jammu/Srinagar 4. The District Program Officer, ICDS, Poonch 5. Child Development Project Officer, Mendhar, District Poonch. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE ORDER 20.12.2025 1. The petitioners were engaged as Helpers/Anganwari Workers temporary either on the direction of the then Programme Officer, ICDS, District Poonch or on the recommendations of the MLC, J.A.Rana. Their Sr. No. 09 2 appointment was not according to the Rules but was only a stop gap arrangement to make the Anganwari Centres and the offices of supervisors functional. The petitioners were, later on, disengaged by the Mission Director, ICDS, J&K vide order dated 22.04.2015. The disengagement was made on the ground that they were continued despite having been appointed only on a stop gap arrangement without following any process of law. It is this order of the Mission Director, ICDS, J&K, which has been called in question by the petitioners in this petition. 2. This petition came up for consideration on 03.02.2016, when this Court while issuing notice to the respondents for filing objections, directed the parties to maintain status quo. Indisputably, the petitioners were disengaged on 22nd April, 2015, whereas the interim direction was passed on 3rd February, 2016. We are not sure whether the petitioners are continuing in service or not. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order impugned in this petition i.e. Order No.13-SMD of 2015 dated 22.04.2015 was quashed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No.1222/2015 and other clubbed matters, which judgment of the learned Single Judge has been upheld by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 24th August, 2023 passed in LPA No.140/2021 and other connected matters. It is submitted that that since the order impugned in 3 this petition stands quashed, as such, this petition has been rendered infructuous. 4. Be that as it may, having regard to the submission made by Mr. Gupta, learned AAG, this petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed in LPA No.140/2021 and clubbed matters. (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 20.12.2025 Vinod. Whether order is speaking: Yes/No Whether order is reportable: Yes/No Vinod Kumar 2025.12.23 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document