The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering merit and suitability for appointments, and the court's authority to quash an engagement order and direct the issuance of an engagement order to the more suitable candidate.

JUDGMENT :

Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J.

These two writ petitions pertain to and raise a similar dispute for adjudication, both are taken up together for disposal, therefore, this judgment shall govern both.

2. In terms of advertisement notice no. DIPK-1457 dated 17.05.2008, applications were invited from the eligible female candidates for engagement of Anganwadi Workers on honorarium basis for Anganwadi Centre in the Panch wards of ICDS Project Anantnag. The petitioners’ of both the writ petitions applied for Anganwadi Centre Ward-13 along with all other eligible candidates. The selection process for the said post culminated into appointment of Mehjabeena Akhter, vide order No. 13 CDPOA of 2008 dated 18.08.2008.

3. The appointment of said Mehjabeena Akhter, however, upon being complained about by one of the competing candidates, Roomi Akhter, on the ground of eligibility, was cancelled for not being the resident of ward no. 13, and, accordingly, she was disengaged from services by the official respondents.

4. Aggrieved of the cancellation of her appointment, Mehjabeena Akhter challenged the same by way of a writ petition bearing SWP No. 366/2012. The writ petition, however, came to be dismissed in terms of judgment dated 09.11.2012 and respondents were directed to proceed with the selection in accordance with the Rules.

5. The order of the writ court was challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal, LPA No. 221/2012, which too has been dismissed in terms of order dated 16.05.2013.

6. Petitioner in SWP No. 876/2015, Roomi Akhter, had initially filed an application before the Competent Authority for cancellation of appointment of Mehjabeena Akhter and also the ward certificate issued in her favour. Upon inquiry, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, found that the case needs further scrutiny at the ground level and appointed the Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Anantnag, as inquiry officer for conducting a full dressed inquiry in presence of the parties.

7. Mehjabeena Akhter, filed a writ petition, SWP No. 564/2010 challenging the inquiry being conducted against her. The writ petition, however, was dismissed vide order dated 3rd May, 2011, being premature. The inquiry thereafter was continued and Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, reported that Mehjabeena Akhter is actually a resident of Bala Sarnal Ward-12. The inquiry was thereafter taken over by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, who found in terms of order dated 16.02.2012, that the Ward Certificate that was issued in favour of Mehjabeena Akhter was fabricated and subsequently directed the official respondents to disengage Mehjabeena Akhter and consider the engagement of the petitioner in SWP no. 876/2015, Roomi Akhter.

8. In terms of the judgment of the Division Bench, the service of the Mehjabeena Akhter was disengaged and subsequent thereto, Roomi Akhter, petitioner in SWP no. 876/2015, was offered engagement against the post in question in light of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, and on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court on May 7th 2015, in SWP No. 876/2015, which, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:-

“MP 01/2015.

MP is disposed of and respondents are directed to implement the order dated 16.02.2012, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, as the writ petition and LPA, challenging the said order have been dismissed.”

9. It is seen from the record that Vide order No. 01/2017 dated 20.06.2017, in compliance to the order of the Court dated 07.05.2015, Roomi Akhter, petitioner in SWP No 876/2015, was engaged as Anganwadi worker for Anganwadi Centre Iqbalabad Ward Peheroo. The engagement of Roomi Akhter was, however, subject to following conditions:-

1. “The term of engagement is till the scheme is run by the Government of India/State government.

2. The engagement is liable to be cancelled without issuing notice if, on the verification any of the relevant certificates is found fake or fraud.

3. The engagement is liable to b