1. It appears that respondent no. 7 issued Advertisement notice No. CDPO/S/Estt-2010/1309-16 dated 16.01.2010, inviting applications for engage ment of Anganwardi Workers on honourarium basis in various Anganwadi Cen tres, sanctioned under the second phase of ICDS Expansion Programme, including the Anganwadi Centre, Chopan Mohallah Cherapora, 'Panch Constituency No. AN-206-II from eligible female candidates. 2. The petitioner claims to have applied for such engagement in Anganwadi Centre Chopan Mohallah Cherapora, Panch Constituency No. AN-206-II, along with other eligible candidates. On completion of the process of selection, the petitioner seems to have been selected. 3. Respondent No. 9, feeling aggrieved of the petitioner's selection, challenged the same before the Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag). The Appellate Authority, in terms of order passed on 07.05.2012, accepted the claim of respondent No. 9 and set aside the selection of the petitioner with direction to the official respondents to consider the candidates of the hamlet strictly as per the norms as envisaged vide Government Order No. 07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010. 4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority in a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir. During the pendency of the revision petition, the Divisional Commissioner, ap pointed Court Commissioner to find out the genuineness of the claim of respondent No. 9, regarding location of the Anganwadi Centre and entitlement of the candi dates in terms of norms/guidelines. 5. The Divisional Commissioner, i. e., the Revisionary Authority, in terms of order dated 19.11.2012 has dismissed the revision petition upholding the order of the Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag). 6. The petitioner, in this petition, who happens to be the candidate selected for engagement as Anganwari Worker, has filed this petition challenging the order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority; the enquiry report dated 16.08.2011 made by respondent no. 8 to the Appellate Authority and the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Revisionary Authority. 7. The official respondents as well as private respondent no. 9 has filed objections to the maintainability of this petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. During the course of hearing on admission, the learned Government Advocate was asked to produce the records of enquiry during the course of the week. However, the records have not been produced. 9.
9 has filed objections to the maintainability of this petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. During the course of hearing on admission, the learned Government Advocate was asked to produce the records of enquiry during the course of the week. However, the records have not been produced. 9. Principally, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Advertisement Notice having been issued on 16.01.2010 process of selection was rightly conducted in terms of the norms prevalent on the date of issue of the Advertisement Notice. However, the Appellate Authority has held that the selections in question were to be made in pursuance of the norms issued on 18.01.2010. In this connection, reference has been made by the learned counsel for the respondents to the order passed by the Appellate Authority wherein it is stated that the Director, Social Welfare Department, Kashmir, had directed that the selection of Anganwari Work ers already advertised be completed as per the criteria presently in vogue, i.e., phase III. 10. Admittedly, the selection committee, while making the selections in ques tion, have conducted the process of selection in terms of the criteria and norms which were not prevalent as on the date the interviews were conducted. While doing so, they have precluded respondent no. 9 from the zone of consideration; whereas going by the criteria and the norms which were prevalent on the date the interviews were held, she was coming within the consideration zone. Therefore, respondent no. 9 had a right to compete in the selection process and selection committee was obliged to evaluate her merit alongwith other eligible candidates. That having not been done, the Selection Committee can safely be said to have acted unfairly. 11. The second ground vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the limitation period fixed for filing of appeals before the Appellate Authority must fail simply because respondent no. 9 having been ex cluded from the consideration zone it could not be expected of her to know about the formulation of the select list. No indiligence can be attributed to respondent no. 9 on that count. 12.
9 having been ex cluded from the consideration zone it could not be expected of her to know about the formulation of the select list. No indiligence can be attributed to respondent no. 9 on that count. 12. The Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority having come to a concurrent finding of fact on the basis of enquiry reports submitted before them by the Enquiry Officers appointed by them to verify the facts, that the Selection Committee had conducted the selection process in violation of the norms and criteria having bearing on the selections, no exception can be taken to such findings. 13. In view of the above, no ground is made out to admit this petition to hearing. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine alongwith the con nected CMP. The Selection Committee is directed to proceed afresh with the selection process from the cutoff date fixed for receipt of applications in terms of Advertisement Notice dated 16.01.2010 strictly in terms of Government Order No. 07-SW of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 and complete the process of selections within seven days from the date copy of this order is served on them. 14. Interim direction dated 11.12.2012 is vacated.