SWP No.2658/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 02.07.2025 Pronounced on: 11.07.2025 SWP No.2658/2012 SARA BEGUM ... PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. M. A. Beigh, Advocate. Vs. STATE OF J&K & OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Ms. Rahella Khan, Assisting Counsel-for R1 to R4. Mr. N. A. Malik, Advocate-for R5. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order No.DPO/ICDS/Estt/Bla- Bpr/2012-13/1658-62 dated 19.09.2012 issued by respondent No.3 as also order No.ICDS/Bpr/Estt/2012/ 1621-25 dated 25.09.2012 issued by respondent No.4. Vide order dated 19.09.2012 (supra), selection of respondent No.5 as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre, Chanapora Nadihal Punch Ward No.10 of District Baramulla has been upheld whereas vide order dated 25.09.2012 (supra), respondent No.5 has been engaged as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Chanapora Nadihal Punch Ward No.10 of District Baramulla. SWP No.2658/2012 2) As per case of the petitioner, an advertisement notice came be issued by respondent No.4 on 20.04.2008 for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in different Anganwadi Centres including Anganwadi Centre, Chanapora Nadihal Ward No.10 comprising Khana Nos.322 to 335, 345 to 359, 68 to 81. It has been submitted that the official respondents also issued a publication through newspaper on 27.04.2008 inviting objections with regard to location of the sanctioned Anganwadi Centres. In response to the said notice, the Villagers of Chanapora Ward No.1 Khana Nos.1 to 32, 110 to 111, 194 to195 submitted detailed objections before respondent No.4 on 30.04.2008. In the objections, the Villagers requested the authorities that the Anganwadi Centre sanctioned for Chanapora does not fall in Ward No.10 but the same falls in Ward No.1 with Khana Nos.1-32, 110-111, 194-195. It was requested to the authorities that only the candidates residing in Ward No.1 in the aforesaid Khana Nos. can apply for the sanctioned Anganwadi Centre pursuant to advertisement notice dated 20.04.2008. It was also submitted in the objections that Chanapora does not fall in Ward No.10 but the same falls in Ward No.1 and, accordingly, a request was made for rectifying the mistake so that the candidates of Ward No.1 are allowed to apply. SWP No.2658/2012 3) It has been submitted that the villagers along with the petitioner were awaiting consideration of their objections but the official respondents issued a provisional select list wherein the name of respondent No.5 was shown at serial No.28. Against the said list, inhabitants of Village Chanapora filed objections wherein it was submitted that respondent No.5 is not a resident of Chanapora, Nadihal Ward No.1 but she is a resident of Wani Mohalla, Ward No.10. 4) It is further case of the petitioner that on receiving the objections, the engagement order in favour of respondent No.5 was kept in abeyance, whereafter respondent No.5 filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.959/2010 before this Court. It has been submitted that in the objections filed by the official respondents to the said writ petition, it was submitted that respondent No.5 is not a resident of Chanapora Nadihal, therefore, engagement order in her favour cannot be issued. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 14.04.2012, whereby the official respondents were directed to consider the case of respondent No.5 herein. 5) After consideration of the matter pursuant to the orders of this Court, the official respondents issued SWP No.2658/2012 impugned order dated 19.09.2012, thereby upholding the selection of respondent No.5 and thereafter the impugned engagement order dated 25.09.2012 came to be issued in favour of respondent No.5. 6) The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the grounds that Chanapora Nadihal falls in Ward No.1 and not in Ward No.10, as such, respondent No.5 was not eligible for engagement. It has been further contended that the official respondents have ignored the fact that they had taken a stand that respondent No.5 is not a resident of Village Chanapora Nadihal while filing objections to the writ petition filed by respondent No.5. It has been further contended that the official respondents have not determined as to whether respondent No.5 is a resident of Chanapora Nadihal. Finally, it has been contended that the official respondents have not considered the objections filed by the petitioner. 7) The official respondents in their reply to the writ petition have submitted that during the pendency of selection process, Government Order No.07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 was issued whereunder the norms for selection of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers were changed and the criteria of Punch Constituency Ward was changed SWP No.2658/2012 to ‘hamlet’. It has been further submitted that at the time of holding the selection process, Government Order No.128-SW of 2008 dated 24.07.2008 was in force and respondent No.5 was held eligible for selection in terms of the norms laid down under the said Government order. The official respondents, in order to lend support to their contentions, have also produced the record. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 9) From the pleadings and the documents placed on record, it is clear that advertisement notice, pursuant to which respondent No.5 has been engaged as an Anganwadi Worker, has been issued in respect of Anganwadi Centre, Nadihal Chanapora Ward No.10 Khana Nos.332-335, 345-359, 68-81. It is not in dispute that respondent No.5 is a resident of Ward No.10 of Village Nadihal Chanapora and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a resident of Ward No.1 of Village Chanapora Nadihal. As per the norms of selection which were in vogue at the relevant time in terms of Government Order No.128- SW of 2008 dated 24.07.2008, the criteria for selection was that the candidate must have been a resident of the Punch Constituency Ward where the Anganwadi Centre is SWP No.2658/2012 located. The Anganwadi Centre in question was located in Punch Ward No.10 and not in Punch Ward No.1. Thus, the petitioner, who is, admittedly, residing in Punch Ward No.1, was not eligible to be considered for selection. 10) The contention of the petitioner is that the Anganwadi Centre sanctioned for Village Nadihal Chanapora had to be established in Ward No.1 and not in Ward No.10 and in this regard the Villagers had submitted their objections. Admittedly, the objections of the Villagers have not been acceded to by the official respondents and the location of the Anganwadi Centre from Ward No.10 to Ward No.1 has not been shifted. Therefore, there was no occasion for the official respondents to dislodge the selection of respondent No.5 and to hold the petitioner eligible for being engaged as an Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Centre in question. The contention raised by the petitioner is, therefore, without any merit. 11) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 11.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.07.2025 02:51