Item No.37 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No.209/2023 ASHA BANO …PETITIONER(S) Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad Malla, Adv. Vs. UT OF J&K & OTHERS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: Mr. Syed Musaib, Dy. AG, with Mr. Z. Q. Noor, GA- for R1 to R7 Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, Adv-for R8. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR,JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 19.02.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged order 25.01.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, whereby her revision petition against order dated 25.10.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, has been dismissed. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 30.11.2022 issued by respondent No.6, whereby engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag, has been terminated and in her place respondent No.8 has been engaged as Anganwadi Worker for the said Centre. 2. The facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties are that an advertisement notice dated 06.10.2015 came to be issued by respondent No.7, whereby applications were invited from the eligible candidates for engagement of Anganwadi Workers for Anganwadi Centre sanctioned and located at Lone/Mir Mohalla of Revenue Village Rednag Kupwara. 2 It appears that the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 participated in the selection process. A total of ten candidates were found to be the actual residents of Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag while six candidates were found to be the residents of different locations. On 10.01.2017, interview of ten candidates, who were residents of the hamlet in question, was fixed and out of these candidates, four candidates faced interview which included the petitioner and respondent No.8. A tentative select list was prepared by the Selection Committee and the same was published vide notification dated 27.01.2017. The petitioner was found to have been selected as Anganwadi Worker for the concerned Anganwadi Centre. Accordingly, vide order dated 11.07.2017, the petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag, who joined her duties pursuant thereto. 3. Against the engagement of petitioner, respondent No.8 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, who is the Appellate Authority in terms of Government Order No.07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010, on the ground that the petitioner had secured less merit as compared to her. The petitioner challenged the appellate proceedings by filing a writ petition bearing SWP No.660/2018 wherein a status quo order was passed by this Court. Ultimately, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2022 and a direction was issued to the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, to hear the parties and to decide the appeal on merits within a period of one month. 3 4. In compliance to the aforesaid directions passed by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, vide his order dated 25.10.2022 allowed the appeal of respondent No.8 by holding that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 are residents of the hamlet Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag but respondent No.8, having secured higher merit, is entitled to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker. Accordingly, direction was issued that the engagement order be issued in favour of respondent No.8 and the engagement of petitioner be dispensed with. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.7 issued impugned order dated 30.11.2022, whereby engagement of the petitioner was terminated and in her place respondent No.8 was engaged as Anganwadi Worker. In the meantime, the petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, by way of a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, who, vide impugned order dated 25.01.2023, dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders issued by the official respondents on the ground that respondent No.8 is a resident of Sheikh Mohalla and not a resident of Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag as the same is clearly mentioned in the report of spot verification of the candidates. It is being submitted that it is for these reasons that at the initial stage, candidature of respondent No.8 was ignored and the petitioner being the second most meritorious candidate in the panel was offered engagement as Anganwadi Worker. It has been further 4 contended that the Appellate Authority without getting any report from the revenue authorities came to the conclusion that respondent No.8 is also a resident of hamlet Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag on the basis of the report of the Committee constituted by the said Authority. It has also been contended that the application of the petitioner for reconstitution of a fresh committee was not considered by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has further contended that the Appellate Authority has entertained the appeal of respondent No.8 belatedly and it was not open to the said Authority to entertain the appeal after the period of limitation had expired. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the documents placed on record by the respondents. 8. So far as the ground of limitation urged by the petitioner is concerned, the same has not been raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. Even otherwise, there is hardly any delay in filing the appeal by respondent No.8 before the Appellate Authority. The select list was published on 10.01.2017 and the appeal came to be filed by respondent No.8 on 06.03.2017. As per the criteria laid down in Government Order No.07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010, an appeal against a select list has to be filed within 30 days of publication of the said list. Respondent No.8 has placed on record a copy of the representation made by her before the Deputy Commissioner on 10.02.2017. Thus she had approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, by way of a proper representation well within the period of 30 5 days of the publication of select list, though it may not have been a formal appeal on her behalf. The fact of the matter remains that she had approached the Appellate Authority within the prescribed period of limitation and it was open to the Deputy Commissioner who is the Appellate Authority, to treat the said representation as an appeal. Instead of doing so, the Deputy Commissioner, it seems, has acted upon the report of the office to the effect that said office is only dealing with the appeal cases. In order to take care of technical objection of the office, respondent No.8, it seems, filed a formal appeal on 06.07.2017. Thus, it cannot be stated that there has been any delay on the part of respondent No.8 in approaching the Deputy Commissioner for assailing the select list/engagement order of the petitioner. 9. That takes us to the merits of the appeal. It is not in dispute that respondent No.8 was holding better merit than that of the petitioner. The only question to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner was as to whether respondent No.8 was a resident of the relevant habitation. In this regard, the Deputy Commissioner has relied upon the report of the Committee constituted by him during the course of the proceedings of the appeal. As per the report of the said Committee, which is based upon the report of the concerned Patwari, respondent No.8 was found to be residing in the advertised hamlet i.e. Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag. The Deputy Commissioner was well within his jurisdiction to rely upon the said report as nothing contrary was brought to his notice by the petitioner during the course of hearing. It is pertinent to mention here that the 6 petitioner has been heard by the Deputy Commissioner before deciding the appeal. 10. The Deputy Commissioner, for coming to the conclusion that respondent No.8 is a resident of the relevant hamlet, has relied not only upon the report of the Committee but he has also considered the voter list of the relevant hamlet in which the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 are figuring. The finding of fact relating to status of residence of respondent No.8 has been confirmed by the Revisional Authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in its impugned order dated 25.01.2023. Therefore, this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the said finding of fact, particularly when the same is based upon the material which has not been impeached or controverted by the petitioner. 11. For the foregoing reasons, order of the Deputy Commissioner, as upheld by the Revisional Authority, does not call for any interference by this Court and consequently, the impugned order relating to termination of engagement of the petitioner and consequent engagement of respondent No.8 in her place, also does not call for interference. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction, if any, shall cease to be in operation. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 19.02.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 25.02.2025 09:41