Point of Law : Anganwadi worker - Appellate Authority has not referred to even a single document or material that would even prima facie suggest that the petitioner was not residing in Mukdam Mohalla at the relevant time.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 03.03.2012 passed by respondent No.3-Dy.Commissioner Baramulla, whereby, the appeal filed by respondent No.8, calling in question the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in Mukdam Mohalla Matipora Rohama, has been decided. The direction restraining the respondents from causing interference into the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker has also been sought.

2. The facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties are that, in the year 2010, an Advertisement Notice was issued by respondent No.7 inviting applications from the eligible female candidates for their engagement as Anganwadi Workers at various Anganwadi Centres to be set in Mohallas of the Villages/Hamlets of Block Rohama. One of the locations for which Anganwadi Centre had been sanctioned and engagement of an eligible Anganwadi Worker was to be made was Mukdam Mohalla of Village Matipora.

3. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement Notice, petitioner as well as respondent No.8 offered their candidature for the position of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Anganwadi Centre, Mukdam Mohalla. After undertaking the process of selection, the petitioner was found to have secured the highest merit whereas the respondent No.8 found her place at the bottom of the merit list. Accordingly, tentative select list of the honorary Anganwadi Workers was issued by the respondents and the petitioner found her way in the said select list.

4. It seems that respondent No.8 made a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sopore, calling into question the eligibility of the petitioner, as, according to the said respondent, the petitioner was not residing in Mukdam Mohalla of Village Matipora and, as such, as per the guidelines of the scheme she was not eligible to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker for the Centre which was located in Mukdam Mohalla.

5. The complaint came to be inquired into by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sopore and vide his report dated 27.08.2011, he came to the conclusion that Matipora is a village of Rohama and Mukdam Mohalla is the Sub Mohalla of Matipora. It was further observed that Matipora, being a habitation of village Rohama, should be considered as a single unit. A direction was issued to CDPO Rohama to proceed strictly with the guidelines of ICDS Scheme. In light of the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sopore, respondent No.7-Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Rohama issued engagement order dated 05.09.2011 in favour of the petitioner, whereby, she was engaged as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Mukdam Mohalla.

6. It appears that the aforesaid engagement order was challenged by respondent No.8 by way of an appeal before the Dy.Commissioner Baramulla. The appeal came to be decided by the Dy. Commissioner vide his order dated 03.03.2012. While deciding the appeal, the Appellate Authority passed the following directions:-

“Considering and turning to the above facts & circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the matter is sent back to the official respondents with the following directions :-

(a) to make the selection either on the Mohalla wise basis by selecting one meritorious candidate from each Mohalla or to re-advertise the posts for the entire village/areas and select two meritorious candidates, in case the boundaries of the Mohalla cannot be defined.

(b) the exercise be completed within two months from the date, a copy of order is served upon the official respondents.”

7. It is this order which is under challenge by way of the instant writ petition.

8. According to the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind to the material available before it, inasmuch as, it has not considered the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate Sopore; that the appeal filed by the respondent No.8 was presented beyond prescribed period of limitation and the Appellate Authority without making any order for condonation of delay has entertaine