The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction and the significance of documentary evidence in determining disputed questions of fact.

JUDGMENT :

1. In Phase-3rd of expansion programme of ICDS an Anganwari Centre for hamlet Pandran and Jakala comprised in Ward No.5 and 6 of Panchayat Halqa Badakana ICDS Project Darhal came to be sanctioned. Vide advertisement notification dated 01.07.2010 issued by respondent No.4, applications were invited for engagement as Anganwari Workers/Helpers on honorarium basis for various Anganwari Centres including the Anganwari Centre in question. The petitioner along with respondent No.7 and few others claiming to be the residents of the concerned hamlet submitted their application forms.

2. The application forms submitted by the eligible candidates were scrutinized by the Selection Committee and a list of eligible candidates was prepared in accordance with the procedure laid down by respondents vide Government Order No.07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 read with corrigendum issued vide Order No.10-SW of 2010 dated 19.01.2010. All the eligible candidates, as is claimed by the official respondents, were interviewed by the then Selection Committee and on the basis of academic merit and performance in the interview, a merit list was prepared. In the provisional select list, a candidate, namely, Yasmeen Akhter was shown provisionally selected as Anganwari Worker, however, selection of Yasmeen Akhter was objected to by the other candidates on the ground that the documents submitted by her were tampered. She was given an opportunity to produce the original documents, which she could not produce. Consequently, her selection was cancelled. The candidate next in merit in the select list Ms. Samara Kouser, too, failed to produce the requisite documents for verification of their genuineness.

3. Left with no option, official respondents called the third candidate in the order of merit but she, too, could not be engaged for having married outside the Tehsil during currency of the selection process. This is how respondent No.7 (private respondent), who was figuring at serial No.4 in the select list on the basis of her merit, was offered engagement. It is this engagement of the private respondent made by respondent No.5 vide order dated 11.10.2012, which is called in question in this petition.

4. Impugned engagement of respondent No.7 is challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds:-

(i) That the private respondent has been engaged as Anganwari Worker without their being any select list prepared, issued and published by the official respondents.

(ii) That the private respondent belongs to Ward No.6, whereas the Anganwari Centre in question is located in Ward No.5 and that being the position, private respondent was ineligible to be engaged as Anganwari Worker in the Anganwari Centre in question.

(iii) That the engagement of private respondent is otherwise not sustainable, as the private respondent at the time of submitting her application and even at the time of her alleged selection and engagement was a regular student of Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University, Rajouri and doing her MA Arabic. She was, therefore, not available to perform the duties of Anganwari Worker for which she was allegedly selected and engaged.

5. The official respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner and have explained, in their reply affidavit, the manner in which the selection process was undertaken. It is submitted that, as per the norms laid down by the Government in terms of Government Order No.07-SW of 2010 read with Government Order No.10-SW of 2010, the forums for filing appeal and revision have been provided and, therefore, in view of the availability of the alternate forums under the Scheme, it was not permissible for the petitioner to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court directly without exhausting the remedies provided under the Scheme.

6. Regarding allegation of the petitioner that the private respondent was engaged despite the fact that she had not faced the interview, it is submitted by the official respondents that a proper intervie