LPA No. 38/2025 Page 1 of 5 Serial No. 51 Supp. Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No. 38/2025 Asha Bano …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bilal Malla, Adv. Vs. UT of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Mr. Yahya, Adv. Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, Adv. with Mr. Tawfeeq H. Khawaja, Adv. CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Puneet Gupta, Judge. ORDE R 01.03.2025 1. This intra court appeal against an order and judgment dated 19.02.2025 passed by a learned single judge of this court (writ court) in WP (C) No. 209/2023 titled “Asha Bano vs. UT of J&K and Ors.” whereby the writ court has dismissed the writ petition. 2. Briefly put the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that vide advertisement notification dated 06.10.2015 issued by respondent No. 7, applications were invited from eligible candidates for engagement of Anganwari Workers for Anganwadi Centres Lone/Mir Mohalla of revenue village Rednag, Kupwara. The appellant as well as the respondent No. 8 along with few others participated in the selection process. Out of 16 candidates who had submitted their applications, only 10 candidates were found to be the actual residents of Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag, Kupwara. The interviews of the eligible ten candidates were conducted on 10th January, 2017. Out of ten eligible LPA No. 38/2025 Page 2 of 5 candidates, only four candidates including the appellant and respondent No. 8 faced the interview. The selection committee entrusted the job of making selection published a tentative selection list on 27.01.2017. The appellant was shown to be selected for the Anganwadi Centre in question in the tentative selection list. Vide order dated 11.07.2017 the CDPO concerned issued an engagement letter in favour of the appellant. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, the appellate authority in terms of Govt. Order No. 07-SW of 2010 dated 18th January, 2010. The selection and engagement of the appellant was challenged by the respondent No. 8 primarily on the ground that respondent No. 8 being more meritorious and belonging to Lone/Mir Mohalla where the Anganwadi Centre was situated was entitled to be selected and engaged. While the appellate authority was seized of the appeal, the appellant herein filed SWP No. 660/2018 wherein an order of status quo was passed by the writ court on the first date of hearing. The writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2022 with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to both the affected parties. When the appeal came up before the appellate authority, the aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed of by the writ court. The appellate authority had already constituted a Committee of four officers/officials of the Social Welfare Department which included two Gazetted Officers of CDPO level and obtained report with regard to the residential status of the appellant as well as respondent No. 8. Acting on the aforesaid report of the Committee which had concluded that the appellant and respondent No. 8 were LPA No. 38/2025 Page 3 of 5 both residents of Lone/Mir Mohalla, the Deputy Commissioner passed final order on the appeal on 30.11.2022. The engagement of the appellant was terminated and in his place respondent No. 8 was directed to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker. The matter was taken to the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir by the appellant by way of revision, which, too, came to be dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner vide its order dated 25.01.2023. The appellant called in question both the orders, one passed by the Deputy Commissioner and another by the Divisional Commissioner in WP (C) No. 209/2023 which petition has been dismissed by the writ court vide order and judgment impugned in this appeal. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the appellant is before us challenging the judgment of the writ court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned passed by the writ court is legally perfect and does not call for any interference by us in this appeal. The residential address of the appellant and respondent No. 8 is a pure question of fact which cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction. It is because of this reason and with a view to adjudicate such disputed questions of fact, the Govt. vide Order No. 07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 created appellate and the revisional authorities. The Deputy Commissioner is the appellate authority whereas the Divisional Commissioner is the revisional authority. The dispute with regard to the actual residence of respondent No. 8 became subject matter of adjudication before the appellate authority. LPA No. 38/2025 Page 4 of 5 6. With a view to ascertain the correct position viz.a.viz the residence of the respondent No. 8 as also the appellant on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, the District Programme Officer ICDS constituted a Committee. The Committee, as is apparent from its constitution was comprised of two gazetted officers of CDPO level. As is clear from the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the report submitted by the Committee, all the four officers/officials visit the hamlet in question and after due enquiry came to the conclusion that both the appellant and the respondent No. 8 were the residents of advertised location i.e. Lone/Mir Mohalla. The report was indeed objected by the appellant. However, appellant neither raised any plea of mala fides against the officers who were members of the Committee nor did she place before the appellate authority any contrary material. It is in these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner accepted the report of the Committee and concluded that both appellant and the respondent No. 8 were the residents of hamlet Lone/Mir Mohalla and that respondent No. 8 being more meritorious than the appellant was entitled to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Centre in question. The revision petition filed by the appellant before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir also came to be dismissed. The Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir concurred with the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara. On the issue of limitation, the writ court has already taken a view which in our opinion is unexceptionable. Otherwise also the writ court was well within its right to adjudicate upon the merits of the controversy even in the absence of any appeal and revision by the aggrieved parties. The writ court has correctly not disturbed the concurrent findings of the fact returned by LPA No. 38/2025 Page 5 of 5 the appellate authority and the revisional authority constituted under the Govt. Order No. 07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010. Neither before the writ court nor even before us, the appellant has been able to produce any documentary evidence of sterling quality which would persuade us to direct a fresh enquiry into the residential status of respondent No. 8. We cannot keep such proceedings open ended. It should be the endeavour of the court to bring the dispute to an end as soon as possible. 7. For all these reasons we have given above, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal and interfere with the values in judgment passed by the writ court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8. Dismissed. (Puneet Gupta) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge SRINAGAR: 01.03.2025 “Sakeena”