Eligibility criteria for government positions must be met, and discrepancies in application and residency status can result in the cancellation of appointments.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution implores for the following reliefs:

(I) Writ of Certiorari, for quashing the order passed by Respondent No. 2 dated 08-09-2015 passed in case titled as Mst. Rukhsana Jan Vs. State & Ors., whereunder the engagement/appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker has been set aside.

(II) Writ of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to keep the selection/engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker intact pursuant to the engagement order bearing No. 03 CDPO of 2015 dated 06-04-2015 issued by Respondent No. 6.

(III) Writ of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre Darpora-Naserpora and release the salary/honorarium of the petitioner regularly.

2. The reliefs aforesaid are being sought by the petitioner on the premise that an advertisement notice came to be issued and published on 1.9.2014 by respondent 6 inviting applications for filling up one post of Anganwari Worker at the newly sanctioned Anganwari Centre Darpora-Naserpora in village Naserpora.

3. It is being stated by the petitioner that she came to be married to one Manzoor Ahmad Dar, resident of Mohallah Herpora village Naserpora on 01.11.2013 and being a local candidate residing in her matrimonial home, applied for the position of Anganwari Worker.

4. It is being stated that four candidates including the petitioner herein were found to be eligible for the post in question and were called for interview on 9.3.2015 whereafter on the basis of marks obtained in 10th class examination coupled with the points secured in the said interview, the petitioner secured 44.53 points whereas the respondent 7 secured 44.27 points, and, as such, the petitioner was consequently selected as Anganwari Worker for the Anganwari Centre in question, which selection came to be notified in the local daily newspaper Greater Kashmir on 27.3.2015 providing therein a right to the non-selectees for filing objections, if any, within 10 days.

5. It is being stated that on account of her non-selection the respondent 7 filed objections against the selection of the petitioner, which objections came to be rejected by respondent 6 in terms of communication dated 6.4.2015 resulting into issuance of formal engagement order bearing no. 03 CDPO of 2015 dated 6.4.2015 by respondent 6 in favour of the petitioner, whereafter the petitioner joined and started discharging her duties as Anganwari Worker.

6. It is being next stated that aggrieved of selection and appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker, respondent 7 preferred an appeal before Deputy Commissioner Shopian, respondent 2 herein, alleging therein that the petitioner at the time of issuance of advertisement notice was unmarried and also is not present permanent resident of Darpora Naserpora.

7. Upon entertaining the appeal, the respondent 2 is stated to have ordered an enquiry into the matter by constituting a committee in terms of order dated 23.5.2015 for just disposal of the appeal, which committee is stated to have reported that the petitioner had been married prior to the issuance of the advertisement notice to one Manzoor Ahmad Dar on 1.11.2013 and ever since the petitioner has been residing with her husband being a resident of Herpora (Darpora) Naserpora, and that there is no Darpora in existence and in fact Darpora is a cluster of houses in Herpora village of the inhabitants with caste Dar.

8. It is being stated that respondent 2 Deputy Commissioner instead of relying on the Committee report decided the appeal in terms of order dated 8.9.2015 setting aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner directing the respondent 6 to issue formal order in favour of respondent 7 as Anganwari Worker.

9. The petitioner has assailed order dated 8.9.2015 on the grounds urged in the petition.

10. Objections to the petition have been filed by respondent 7 wherein it is being sta