HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU SWP No. 1667/2017 IA No. 1/2017 Fareeda Bano …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. Y. Akhoon, Advocate vs State of J&K and ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-1 to 4 None for R-5 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 22.07.2025 ORAL 1. The instant petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution is the second attempt made by him for seeking her selection and appointment as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Cheer Khad Ward No. 02 of Panchayat Badhori. 2. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner herein filed SWP No. 47/2009 before this Court wherein the petitioner challenged the order of engagement of respondent 5 herein (respondent 10 in the said petition) having been selected and appointed as Anganwari Worker in terms of order dated 10.10.2008, seeking quashment of the selection list dated 27.09.2008 pertaining to the said Anganwari Centre and the consequential appointment of respondent 5 as Angangwari Worker, which petition came to be disposed of on 24.11.2016 at the instance of the counsel for the petitioner herein with a direction to the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment in Serial No. 39 2 SWP No. 1667/2017 the light of clarification dated 05.02.2011 issued by the Director Social Welfare Department, Jammu. 3. Pursuant to the said direction passed by this Court on 24.11.2016, the official respondents issued a consideration order dated 24.05.2017 holding that the circular dated 05.02.2011 has been issued much after the appointment of the private respondent 5 herein having been appointed on 10.10.2008 as also that the petitioner even otherwise was not the meritorious candidate among ST candidates who had sought selection and appointment in the centre in question. 4. The petitioner herein in the instant petition has now called in question the said order dated 24.05.2017 and has yet again sought her selection and appointment as Anganwari Worker in the Anganwari Centre in question firstly on the premise that the candidates 1 to 4 figuring in the merit list drawn by the respondents did not belong to Ward No. 2 although belonged to ST category and that respondent 5 herein also did not belong to ST category but SC category and as such, could not have been selected and appointed as Anganwari Worker in the centre in question, in that as per the advertisement notice issued by the respondents, the selection and appointment had to be made from amongst the ST candidates alone. 5. Objections to the petition have been filed by respondents 1 to 4 whereas respondent 5 has chosen not to file any objections to the petition. 6. In the objections filed by respondents 1 to 4, it is being submitted that all the candidates referred in the merit list belong to Village Cheer 3 SWP No. 1667/2017 Khad Panchayat Badhori at the time of issuance of advertisement notice and that the advertisement notice did nowhere provide that Anganwari Worker for the Anganwari Centre in question has to be selected and appointed amongst ST candidates alone, while further reiterating that the circular dated 05.02.2011 was not applicable in the matter as the selection and appointment have had been undertaken and made in the year 2008, much before the issuance of the said circular. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the record available on the file as also one produced by the counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 admittedly reveal that circular dated 05.02.2011 had come into being after the selection and appointment of respondent 5 herein and the said circular had originated from the minutes of meeting dated 24.09.2010 held by the official respondents, providing therein that those Anganwari Centres which had been opened predominantly in SC/ST areas shall engage candidates as Anganwari Workers in such Anganwari Centres from respective areas and from the same category. In view of the aforesaid factual position obtaining in the matter, neither decision taken in the meeting dated 24.09.2010 supra nor circular dated 05.02.2011 thus has been applicable to the case of the petitioner requiring the respondents to make selection and appointment of Anganwardi Worker in the Anganwari Centre in question from amongst the candidates belonging to category which predominantly is residing in the area where the Centre is opened, as the process of 4 SWP No. 1667/2017 selection in question and selection and appointment of respondent 5 herein have had happened earlier thereto. 8. In so far as the contention of the petitioner qua candidates figuring at Serial Nos. 1 to 4 in the merit list drawn by the respondents is concerned, the same indisputably reveal that the candidates figuring in the said list at Serial No. 1, 3 and 4 though belong to ST category but of Ward no. 6 when in fact, the advertisement was made for Ward No. 2. The petitioner, however figures in the said list at Serial No. 5 as a ST candidate and the candidate at Serial No. 2 in the said merit list also belong to ST category and indisputably has superior merit than the petitioner who is shown to have secured 222 marks out of 500 as against the petitioner herein having secured 198 marks out of 500. Thus, even if it is assumed that the rest of the candidates in the merit list supra belong to Ward No. 6, yet the petitioner on account of her inferior merit than the candidate figuring at Serial No. 02 could not get selected or appointed even if the selection and appointment of respondent 5 herein is found to be faulty and is consequently quashed. 9. It is significant to mention here that the specific case of the official respondents set up in the reply filed to the petition is that the selection in question was never meant to be undertaken pursuant to any reservation policy for reserved candidates but have had to be made strictly on the basis of merit and the said plea of the respondents seemingly also lends support from the examination of the advertisement notice in question which does not make any kind of mention in this regard thereof, thus, suggesting that the selection and 5 SWP No. 1667/2017 appointment have had to be made for the Anganwari Centre in question but on the basis of overall merit of the candidates. 10. For what has been observed, considered and analysed hereinabove, the instant petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Record produced by the counsel for the respondents is returned back in the open Court. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE Jammu 22.07.2025 Neha-II Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No NEHA KUMARI 2025.08.05 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document