S. No. 25 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR SWP No. 118/2016 Meema Bano …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. T.A Lone, Advocate Vs. State of JK and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Momin Khan, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 08.05.2025 1. The petitioner through the medium of this petition has sought following relief: - a) Quashing apprehended action of respondents to disengage petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Dar Mohalla near Larkipora made by official respondents; b) Commanding respondents not to disengage petitioner from post of Anganwadi Worker from Anganwadi Centre Dar Mohalla near Larkipora made by official respondents; c) Commanding respondents not to engage any candidate as Anganwadi Worker fosr Anganwadi Centre Dar Mohalla near Larkipora in place of petitioner. 2. The relief has been claimed by the petitioner on the ground that she apprehends disengagement, therefore, seeks protection from being disengaged. It is also stated that she, being eligible and local resident of village Larkipora, responded to the advertisement notice for engagement as Anganwadi Worker. It is being also stated that at the instance of some blue-eyed candidate, the official respondents are adamant to disengage petitioner, as such, they have started visiting Anganwadi Centre and her residence regularly under the garb of verification. According to her, respondents are also not releasing the due wages to her. Thus, petitioner pleads apprehension about her disengagement. 3. On petition being filed, a Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2016, while issuing notice to respondents, directed that present status of the petitioner shall not be disturbed till next date of hearing. 4. On an application filed by one Anisa Jan, being MP no.02/2016, a Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.02.2016, arrayed her as party respondent no.5 in writ petition. 5. Reply has been filed by both official respondents 1 to 4 as well as private respondent no.5 6. Perusal of the pleadings and record on file would reveal that advertisement notice for selection of Anganwari Worker in Dar Mohalla near Graveyard Larkipora was published on 01.03.2017. Petitioner had responded thereto. However, objections were filed by respondent no.5 herein averring that petitioner was not resident of Dar Mohalla Larkipora. Aggrieved of petitioner’s tentative selection, respondent no.5 filed writ petition, being SWP no.789/2015, in which present petitioner was party respondent no.5. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgement/order dated 17.09.2015 with a direction to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, to visit the spot, hold inquiry into the resident of Dar Mohalla, Larkipora i.e., hamlet/habitation, where Anganwadi Centre in question was located. It was also directed that while inquiring into the matter, Inquiry Officer would provide adequate and reasonable opportunity to both parties i.e., petitioner and respondent no.5 to put forth their stand. It was also provided and that directed report would be transmitted to Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) Project Tral, in the event respondent no.5 (petitioner herein) was found to be resident of Dar Mohalla, Larkipora, her engagement obviously should not be disturbed. However, in case, I.O. found that respondent no.5 (petitioner herein) was not resident of Dar Mohalla, i.e., hamlet/habitation, where Anganwadi Centre is located, her selection/engagement would stand quashed and petitioner (respondent no.5 herein) if meritorious amongst eligible candidates who responded to advertisement notice and participated in selection process, selected/engaged against the Anganwari Worker position in Anganwari Centre, Dar Mohalla, near Graveyard Larkipora. 7. In view of directions passed in SWP no.789/2015, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, visited the spot on 16.01.2016 and observed that Aneesa Jan is resident of Wani Mohalla and petitioner herein is resident of Nath Mohalla. 8. Perusal of file also divulges that respondent no.5 herein had filed contempt petition, being Cont.(SWP) no.918/2015, in which report was filed. 9. Respondent no.4 vide Order no.CDPO/T/ 2016/ 1427-30 dated 23.01.2016 quashed petitioner’s engagement as it was found that petitioner herein was not resident of the area where Anganwadi Centre is located. Petitioner cannot be heard saying that she had no information about issuance of aforesaid order, for respondents have brought all the facts in their Reply/objections including one that petitioner has concealed material facts before this Court while filing instant writ petition. Since order dated 23.01.2016 has not been thrown to challenge till date by petitioner, as such, it has attained finality. Resultantly, writ petition lacks in merit and deserves to be dismissed 10. In view of above writ petition is dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 08.05.2025 Shabroz