Serial No. 56 Reg. Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR SWP 158/2011 RUKHSANA ALI … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sajad Geelani, Advocate Vs. STATE OF J AND K AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. M. Younis, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 04.09.2025 1. In the instant petition, the petitioner herein claims to have passed matriculation having secured 224 out of 500 marks as also 10+ 2 examination having secured 280 out of 600 marks. It is also stated that in the year 2010 the official respondents created various Anganwari Centers in ICDS Project Langate, Handwara including in Parray/Mukhdoom Mohalla Khanoo and in order to operate the said centers, a process of selection for filing up the angawari workers was invited for 39 vacancies in the said Anganwari Centers including for Anganwari Center Parry/Mukhdoom Mohalla and an advertisement came to be issued on 26.07.2010 and the petitioner herein being possessed of the eligibility applied for said Anganwari Center of Parray/Mukhoom Mohalla Khanoo along with other candidates. 2. It is next stated that after entertaining the applications of the candidates including that of the petitioner, the official respondents proceeded to conduct interview and petitioner as well was invited for the interview on 04.01.2011 wherein the petitioner faired well, and consequently a selection list of 25 candidates was framed by the respondents for 25 Anganwari Centers including for the Anganwari Centre in question which selection list was notified on 05.01.2011 and objections came to be invited thereof and in the said selection list the name of the petitioner was reflected /shown to have secured 50.08 points and no objections qua the said Anganwari Center was filed by anyone and, thus, the petitioner while was expecting the issuance of an order of her engagement, the respondents did not conclude the said process of selection qua the centre in question and instead issued a fresh advertisement notice for the centre in question published in Daily Khidmat on 30.01.2011. 3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the re-advertisement of the vacancy of the Anganwari Worker for the Anganwari Centre in question has maintained the instant petition on multiple grounds. 4. Objections to the petition have been filed by respondents 1 to 4 wherein it has been inter alia stated that though the interviews for filing up the vacancy of Anganwari workers were scheduled to be conducted on 4th and 5th of January 2011, pursuant to the process of selection initiated by the respondents, however, on the 5th of January 2011 itself various objections came to be raised for engagement of the Anganwari workers for the Anganwari Centre in question, as the Anganwari Centers consisted of two Mohalls being Mukhdoom Mohalla and Parray Mohalla and in order to resolve the issue, it came to be decided not to finalize the process of selection for the centre in question. It is further stated that the petitioner was never tentatively selected for the engagement as Anganwari worker as the selection list relied upon by the petitioner was found to be manipulated document. It is next stated that the competent authority decided to re-advertise the vacancy of Anganwari Worker in question and thus a fresh advertisement notice was issued on 29.01.2011. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the respondent did not complete the process of selection for the Anganwari Centre in question pursuant to the initial advertisement notice with a design and issued the re-advertisement notice for extraneous consideration. 6. On the contrary the counsel for the respondents produced a copy of the DB judgment passed in LPA No. 284/2011 decided on 12.04.2012 and would submit that the petitioner herein during the pendency of the instant petition filed the said LPA against order dated 01.11. 2011, passed in the instant petition in terms whereof interim direction passed in the writ petition on 3.02.2011 came to be modified, while providing that any selection made in respect of the Anganwari Centre Parry/Mukhdoom Mohalla shall remain subject to the outcome of the main writ petition. 7. According to the counsel for the respondents, while dismissing the said LPA, the Division Bench, upheld the order dated 01.11.2011 in terms whereof the answering respondents have had been authorized to make the selection in respect of the Anganwari Centre in question, pursuant to the fresh advertisement which selection, however, had to remain subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The counsel for the respondents would further submit that pursuant to the said authorization, the official respondents proceeded ahead with the process of selection pursuant to the advertisement notice under challenge and consequently selected one Parveena D/o Javid Ahmad Ganaie, R/o Khanoo in terms of order dated 10.05.2012, and that the said selected candidate stands appointed and is working as angawari worker and that the said engagement of the said selectee/appointee has not been called in question by the petitioner till date. 8. Since the case setup by the petitioner in the instant petition against the impugned advertisement notice is based on the premise that the respondents though had initiated a process of selection earlier wherein the petitioner have had participated and was also shown in the tentative selection list drawn and prepared by the selection committee, yet the respondents did not conclude the said process of selection for extraneous considerations and instead choose to re-advertise the position of anganwari worker for the Anganwari Centre in question, record, however, would reveal that in-opposition to the said plea of the petitioner, the respondents have specifically denied and disputed the issuance of any tentative selection list, so much so, have disputed the existence of such tentative selection as well and have infact stated that the said selection list has been manipulated by the petitioner, although the petitioner herein in the rejoinder affidavit has contended that the said disputed selection list was never questioned by the respondents in a connected petition being SWP No. 205/2011. 9. 9. Be that as it may, even if it is assumed that the tentative selection list in question has been genuine or else not manipulated as is alleged by the respondents, yet fact remains that the respondents have had decided to re-advertise the vacancy Anganwari worker for Anganwari Centre Parry/Mukhdoom Mohall Khanoo, owing to the controversy having arisen on account of the combination of two Mohalls. Law is settled that mere appearance of name of a candidate in the tentative selection list cannot be said to have been clothed with any right muchless one recognized under law. 10. Thus this being the settled legal position, the petitioner therefore cannot either complain of any grievance or seek claim any right enforceable in law in the matter. 11. In view of the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the instant petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 04.09.2025 “S.Nuzhat” Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reporting Yes/No