HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No:-SWP No. 2214/2017 Sushma Devi …. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate. Vs State of J&K and Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG. Mr. AnujDewan Raina, Advocate. Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 01.07.2025 1. In the instant petition, filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. Certiorari for quahsment of the order No. DCK/Legal/2017- 18/239-43 dated 18.07.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 vides which respondent no. 2 has drawn a conclusion that respondent no. 5 was residing with her parents at village Sadrota Kathua MohraChurndaTeshilBillawar District Kathua at the time of issuance of advertisement notification in the year 2010 as the same is passed by the respondent no. 5 in an illegal, arbitrary and malafide manner and more over the same is quite contrary to the enquiry report. ii. Certiorari for the quashment of the engagement of the respondent no. 5 as Anganwari Worker in the Aganwari Centre ChurndaVillage Sadrota Tehsil Billawar District Kathua as she was resident of MohraOwandi Tehsil Billawar District Kathua at the time of issuance of advertisement notification in the year 2010 and now respondent no. 5 after her marriage is residing in her matrimonial home at village Najot Tehsil Billawar District Kathua. iii. Mandamus commanding the official respondents to engage the petitioner as Aganwari worker for the Aganwari Centre ChurndaVilllageSadrota Tehsil Billawar District Kathua as petitioner is the resident of Village SadrotaMohraChumda Tehsil Billawar District Kathua. 2. The background facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner and as arestated in the Sr. No. 15 2 SWP No. 2214/2017 petition are that anAdvertisement Notice dated 03.07.2010 came to be issued by the respondent 2 herein for selection and appointment of Aganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre, Churnda, Village Sadrota, Tehsil Billawar District Kathua, whereafterconducting a process of selection, a panel came to be drawn on 18.01.2010, recommending the engagement of respondent 5 herein, aggrieved whereof, the petitioner herein preferred a writ petition beingSWP No. 737/2011 before this Court on the premise that the respondent 5 herein was not the resident of hamlet Churnda,but hamlet Owandi, although both hamlets fall in Ward No. 3, whereupon the said writ petition came to be disposed of on 22.04.2016 quash the selection of respondent 5 directing the official respondents to undertake the selection process afresh on the basis of applications already received from the candidates belonging to Hamlet Churnda. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 22.04.2016, respondent 5 herein preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being LPASW No. 78/2016 before the Division Bench, which appeal came to be disposed of on 08.11.2016 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua to conduct an enquiry as regard the residence status of the appellant/respondent 5 herein on the date of the issuance of advertisement notice dated 03.07.2010 and determine as to whether on that date, the appellant-respondent 5 herein was, in fact,a resident of hamlet Churnda or not, while providing further that the parties shall be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Deputy Commissioner and till fresh orders after completion of the said enquiry are passed, the appellant/respondent 5 herein shall be allowed to continue as Anganwadi Worker. Subsequent to the passing of the order dated 08.11.2016 by the Division Bench, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua passed order dated 3 SWP No. 2214/2017 18.07.2017,which is impugned in the instant petition, holding therein that the respondent 5 herein was residing with her parents at village SadrotaMorhaChurandaat the time of the advertisement notice in the year 2010 and was eligible candidate as per record required for the post ofAnganwadi Worker. 3. The petitioner herein aggrieved of the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 18.07.2010 has maintained in the instant petition while reiterating that the respondent 5 herein at the time of issuance of the advertisement notice was not a resident Hamlet Churnda, but of hamlet Owandiand that her selection and engagement as Anganwadi Worker was wrongly and illegally made and that Deputy Commissioner, Kathua while passing the impugned order acted in a casual and mechanical manner inasmuch as without application of mind. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record produced by the counsel for the official respondents. 4. It is significant to mention here that notwithstanding the rival pleadings of the parties,the Division Bench vide order dated 08.11.2016(supra)passed in LPASW No. 78/2016 (supra), narrowed down andcrystallized the issue while directing the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua-respondent 2 to hold an enquiry in the matter qua the residentialstatus of respondent 5 herein on the date of issuance of the advertisement notice dated03.07.2010 and to determine as to whether on that date that the respondent 5 herein was, in fact, a resident of Hamlet Churnda or not. 3. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua has inexplicit and clear terms stated that the respondent 5 herein on the 4 SWP No. 2214/2017 date of issuance of advertisement notice was resident of Hamlet Churndaand was unmarried at the time of issuance of Advertisement Notice dated 03.07.2010 and was residing with her father at MorhaChurndaand being eligible for selection of Aganwadi Worker came to be selected and engaged and thereafter got married at Village Najot in the year 2014. 6. Having regard to the record produced by the counsel for the official respondents, as also the findings recorded thereof by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua qua the residence of respondent 5 herein on the date of issuance of the advertisement notice dated 03.07.2010, this Court has no reason todisregard and disbelieve the said findings arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua based upon the enquiry conducted therebythis Court is not inclined to display indulgence and to enter into the arena of determination of question of facts determined by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua qua the residence status of respondent 5 herein as ordered by the Division Bench in the order dated 08.11.2016. 7. Accordingly, the petition isdismissed along with connected application(s). 8. Record produced by the learned counsel for the official respondents is returned back in the open Court. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge Jammu 01.07.2025 Javid Iqbal