The court upheld the Deputy Commissioner's decision regarding the engagement of Anganwadi Workers based on merit and residency verification, confirming that procedural compliance was met.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has challenged order 25.01.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, whereby her revision petition against order dated 25.10.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, has been dismissed. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 30.11.2022 issued by respondent No.6, whereby engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag, has been terminated and in her place respondent No.8 has been engaged as Anganwadi Worker for the said Centre.

2. The facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties are that an advertisement notice dated 06.10.2015 came to be issued by respondent No.7, whereby applications were invited from the eligible candidates for engagement of Anganwadi Workers for Anganwadi Centre sanctioned and located at Lone/Mir Mohalla of Revenue Village Rednag Kupwara. It appears that the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 participated in the selection process. A total of ten candidates were found to be the actual residents of Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag while six candidates were found to be the residents of different locations. On 10.01.2017, interview of ten candidates, who were residents of the hamlet in question, was fixed and out of these candidates, four candidates faced interview which included the petitioner and respondent No.8. A tentative select list was prepared by the Selection Committee and the same was published vide notification dated 27.01.2017. The petitioner was found to have been selected as Anganwadi Worker for the concerned Anganwadi Centre. Accordingly, vide order dated 11.07.2017, the petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag, who joined her duties pursuant thereto.

3. Against the engagement of petitioner, respondent No.8 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, who is the Appellate Authority in terms of Government Order No.07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010, on the ground that the petitioner had secured less merit as compared to her. The petitioner challenged the appellate proceedings by filing a writ petition bearing SWP No.660/2018 wherein a status quo order was passed by this Court. Ultimately, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2022 and a direction was issued to the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, to hear the parties and to decide the appeal on merits within a period of one month.

4. In compliance to the aforesaid directions passed by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, vide his order dated 25.10.2022 allowed the appeal of respondent No.8 by holding that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 are residents of the hamlet Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag but respondent No.8, having secured higher merit, is entitled to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker. Accordingly, direction was issued that the engagement order be issued in favour of respondent No.8 and the engagement of petitioner be dispensed with.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.7 issued impugned order dated 30.11.2022, whereby engagement of the petitioner was terminated and in her place respondent No.8 was engaged as Anganwadi Worker. In the meantime, the petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, by way of a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, who, vide impugned order dated 25.01.2023, dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders issued by the official respondents on the ground that respondent No.8 is a resident of Sheikh Mohalla and not a resident of Lone/Mir Mohalla Rednag as the same is clearly mentioned in the report of spot verification of the candidates. It is being submitted that it is for these reasons that at the initial stage, candidature of respondent No.8 was ignored and the petitioner being the second most meritorious candidate in the panel