IMPORTANT POINT
A petitioner cannot challenge a disengagement order in multiple petitions if the issue has been previously adjudicated, emphasizing the principle of finality in judicial decisions.

JUDGMENT :

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

(i) “Certiorari quashing the order No.DPO/ICDS/Estt/2012/Bla/304-07 dated 08.05.2012 issued by the respondent No. 3 as also the enquiry report submitted by the so called enquiry team in terms of communication dated 25.03.2015. Further the engagement order, if any, issued in favour of the private respondent be also quashed.

(ii) Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 5 to conduct fresh enquiry as mandated by the order passed by the Hon’ble court dated 23.09.2013 and accordingly pass appropriate orders with regard to reengagement of the petitioner as Aganwadi Worker in Aganwadi centre Ganie Mohalla Goripora Sopore. The respondents may be further directed to give all consequential and ancillary benefits to the petitioner”.

2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed and as are stated in the petition are that in terms of order dated 28.08.2010, petitioner came to be selected/engaged as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Ganie Mohalla Goripora, Sopore, where after an engagement order was issued in her favour in terms of order dated 12.10.2010.

3. It is stated that the selection of the petitioner vide order dated 23^rd August, 2010, came to be notified in a newspaper on 27^th August, 2010.

4. It is also stated that on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent 6 herein, the respondent 3 issued an order dated 08.05.2012, whereby the selection/engagement of the petitioner came to be cancelled.

5. It is further stated that aggrieved by cancellation of her selection/engagement, the petitioner herein preferred SWP No. 1023/2012, before this Court, followed by another petition being SWP No. 2297/2013, wherein the petitioner inter-alia challenged the cancellation of her selection/engagement also and writ petition 2297/2013, came to be disposed of by this Court on 23^rd September 2013, with a direction to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Barmulla to conduct an enquiry about the exact and actual residence of the petitioner as well as private respondent after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties and to proceed ahead with the selection/appointment on the basis of the report of enquiry of the respondent/Deputy Commissioner.

6. It is being next stated that though the respondent-Deputy Commissioner did not initially conduct the enquiry which compelled the petitioner to file a contempt petition No. 409/2015 before this Court, in response thereto a status report came to be filed by the official respondents/contemnors wherein it was stated that the enquiry stands conducted and concluded in the matter and on the basis of the said enquiry, the petitioner was not found to be eligible for selection/engagement as Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Centre in question.

7. It is further stated that the petitioner after obtaining a copy of the said statement of facts, filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the respondent-Deputy Commissioner for furnishing copies of the letter dated 13.08.2014 and the enquiry report, whereupon the petitioner came to be furnished the said information on 14^th June, 2018 and subsequently challenged the same in the instant petition.

8. The petitioner herein has challenged in the instant petition the engagement of respondent 6 ordered vide order dated 08.05.2012 as also the enquiry report of the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, which enquiry came to be ordered by this Court upon disposal of the writ petition being SWP No. 2297/2013, disposed of on 23^rd September, 2013.

9. The petitioner while maintaining the instant petition has contended that she came to be appointed in the Agwanwadi Centre in question in terms of order dated 12.10.2010, being daughter of one Ghulam Hassan Bhat and being resident of Ganie Mohalla where the Anganwadi Centre was sanctioned and established.

It is further the case of the petitioner