Per Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.9.2009 rendered in OWP No.663/2008. Appellant claim to have been selected for being engaged as Anganwadi Worker as against the Anganwadi Centre, Punch Ward No.69/05 located at village Pakherpora, Singe. The appointment order was not issued, apprehended exclusion, therefore, filed writ petition OWP No.663 of 2008 praying therein: (1) that the respondents shall be prohibited from dividing the village Pakherpora into two parts and from changing the location of the Anganwadi Centre, (2) to command the respondents to issue the appointment order in favour of the petitioner (3) to (sic) call the record of the civil suit titled Naza Bano v. State of J&K & Ors. and to quash the same. 2. The petition so filed has been dismissed on the count of suppression of facts and on the count of invoking the jurisdiction of the Court with unclean hands. 3. Basically applications from female candidates have been invited for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in various Anganwadi Centres which include the Anganwadi Centre, Bonpora. The criteria fixed for selection was: (1) the candidate must be in the age group of 18 to 44 years, (2) minimum qualification shall be matriculation and in case no matriculate candidate is available, then middle pass candidate to be considered, (3) 75% weightage was to be given to the minimum qualification and 25% to the viva voce. 4. Application of the appellant initially was not received but then when send through post was received and thereafter being the only eligible candidate appears to have been selected. Respondent No.7 who did not possess the prescribed qualification of matric, filed a complaint complaining therein that the father of the appellant possess two ration cards so as to show himself to be the resident of Kangripora and Pakherpora, based on which one of his daughter, namely, Shabeera Akhter got engaged as Anganwadi Worker in the year 2006 at Kangripora and now on the basis of second ration card is trying to get appellant engaged as Anganwadi Worker at Pakherpora. At the same time respondent No.7 had filed a suit before the Court of Munsiff, Magam titled Mst. Naza Begum Vs, State & Ors so as to seek declaration vis-a-vis her right to get engaged against the post of Anganwadi Worker at Pakherpora. At the same time respondent No.7 had filed a suit before the Court of Munsiff, Magam titled Mst. Naza Begum Vs, State & Ors so as to seek declaration vis-a-vis her right to get engaged against the post of Anganwadi Worker at Pakherpora. The complaint as filed by the respondent No.7 has been investigated by P/S VOK who communicated to CDPO, ICDS, Beerwah that on enquiry it was found that Ali Mohammad Dar (father of the appellant) has migrated to Pakherpora about 14 years back but still possess ration cards at both places i.e. Kangripora and Pakherpora, so under rules is entitled to any kind of benefit at one place at a time and not at two places simultaneously. 5. Learned Single Judge while noticing the position that the father of the appellant possess two ration cards and one of his daughters, namely, Shabeera Akhter has already been engaged as Anganwadi Worker in the year 2006 at Kangripora, has been suppressed, so efforts of her father to get both the daughters engaged as Anganwadi Workers cannot be allowed at all. 6. Perusal of the memo of LPA is suggestive of the fact that the matter has not been correctly appreciated. Learned counsel rightly contended that it is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioner has migrated to Pakherpora about 14 years back, so position of the petitioner being resident of Pakherpora at the time of advertisement as well as up to date is not denied. The requirement for engaging an Anganwadi Worker is that candidate must be resident of the area/habitation where the Anganwadi Worker is to be engaged. The position of her father possessing two ration cards cannot be adversely attributed to the petitioner as that is not the act of the petitioner. Petitioners bonafide is clear she is actually resident of Pakherpora as she has been residing there for last 14 years. 7. It is not the petitioner who has obtained any ration card. Requirement for engagement for the petitioner is that she must be the resident of the area which fact is not denied as the permanent residence certificate in her favour also shows her residence as Pakherpora. For the act of her father she cannot be punished. 8. The next contention as raised by the learned counsel is that the father of the petitioner in fact was resident of Kangripora prior to 14 years. For the act of her father she cannot be punished. 8. The next contention as raised by the learned counsel is that the father of the petitioner in fact was resident of Kangripora prior to 14 years. No doubt his another daughter, namely, Shabeera Akhter has been engaged as Anganwadi Worker in the year 2006 at Kangripora when she had every right of being engaged as she is married there and resides there at Kangripora. This aspect of the case too has not been noticed nor gone into. At the time of passing of the order impugned, counsel for the petitioner was not present as is also clear from the judgment itself, otherwise this aspect of the case would have been highlighted. In this context petitioner has been deprived of utilizing the services of her advocate. 9. Next it was contended that the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondents on 15.9.2008 vide order No.ICD/BRU/08/556-57. The said cancellation also has been challenged by medium of SWP No. 1047/2009. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together but that petition has not been decided at all. This argument has a prevailing force. Admittedly in the judgment no reference is made to SWP No. 1047/2009. 10. Next learned counsel contended that in the impugned order it has been mentioned that the respondent No.7 has been selected, which is not the fact as she has not been selected at all. She had put forth her claim for engagement only on exclusion of the petitioner because she is only middle pass. She will have right of consideration only when the petitioner will be declared ineligible. Therefore, noticing of selection of respondent No.7 also shows that the matter has not been correctly appreciated. 11. With the cancellation of selection of the petitioner, the writ petition in itself would become infructuous because it is on the basis of selection, petitioner had sought various reliefs including direction for issuance of engagement order in her favour as the another part of relief regarding division of the village was answered in reply by the respondents by stating that they are not intending to divide the village. 12. 12. Whether the selection of the petitioner for being engaged as Anganwadi Worker as against the said Anganwadi Centre, will survive, depends upon the determination of the order of cancellation which is under challenge in SWP No. 1047/2009 and in case the judgment impugned is not set aside, that petition will automatically become infructuous. 13. For the reasons and submissions which have prevailing forces, order impugned cannot sustain and at the same time the writ petition will also not survive as in view of the order of cancellation of selection of the petitioner, it is rendered infructuous. Therefore, while setting aside the order impugned, petition of the petitioner i.e. OWP No.663/2008 shall stand disposed of as having become infructuous. SWP No. 1047/2009, which has remained to be decided, shall be listed in the next regular cause list and shall be decided on its own merits and both the parties shall be at liberty to project all the details as noticed hereinabove so as to help the effectual adjudication of the matter. LPA accordingly disposed of.