1. The petitioner came to be selected as an Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre in Mohalla Malikan, village Arai, tehsil Mandi, district Poonch and figured at serial No. 10 in the select list. It appears that before the appointments could be made, several writ petitions came to be filed before this court, challenging the selection of Anganwari Workers of District Poonch including that of the petitioner. 2. The petitions came to be disposed of by virtue of a common judgment dated 4-4-2008, operative part whereof is reproduced hereunder: "Mr. Naik learned Advocate General on behalf of the State made a statement at Bar that the government would not be cancelling the entire selection but would re-examine the cases of those candidates alone in respect of whom discrepancies have been detected. He further stated that out of those candidates in respect of whom the discrepancies have been detected and in respect of whom engagement orders have been issued, their services shall not be terminated without following the due course of law and observance of the principles of natural justice. However, the cases in respect of those candidates for whom the engagement orders have not been issued shall be re-examined and appropriate action would be taken because mere selection does not confer a right of appointment upon a selectee. 3. In view of the above statement of learned Advocate General, this batch of writ petitions is disposed of by providing as follows: a) The selection of Anganwari Workers made in the districts of Poonch and Rajouri as a whole shall not be cancelled by the government; b) The services of such of the selected candidates in respect of whom the discrepancies have been found but engagement orders stand issued, shall not be terminated by the competent authority without following the due course of law and observance of principles of natural justice; c) The selected candidates in respect of whom discrepancies in the selection have been found but engagement orders had not been issued, government/ competent authority shall re-examine their cases and pass appropriate orders; d) The candidates who have joined pursuant to the interim orders shall be paid honorarium due w.e.f., the date of joining." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the orders of appointment have been issued in favour of the other selected candidates but the petitioner has been discriminated and singled out without there being any just or reasonable cause. It was further urged that the petitioner could not, in law, be denied the appointment for which she has been duly selected by the competent authority and that the respondents were under an obligation to issue the engagement /appointment orders in favour of the petitioner. 5. The respondents have filed detailed objections to the writ petition wherein it has been stated that the select list, which contains the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 10, was subject to objections and further that one Kaniz Begum and Farida Begum filed objections against the proposed selection of the petitioner on the ground that she was not a resident of mohalla Malikan, village Arai but had since been married in village Dabraj, tehsil Mendhar. 6. It is further stated that objections of Kaniz Begum and Farida Akhter were enquired into and on spot verification conducted wherein it was found that the petitioner actually was a non-local, who had been married in village Dabraj, tehsil Mendhar. 7. The further stand of the respondents-State was that one Kaniz Begum was also found to be a non-local but regarding Farida Akhter, it has been found that she is a resident of Mohalla Mallikan-Arai. It . was, thus, stated that Farida Akhter was entitled for selection, as Anganwari Worker. It was further stated that the entire matter was placed before the Selection Committee for re-examination of the case and after approval given by the Selection Committee, Farida Akhter has been selected and order of engagement has to be issued in her favour. 8. Denying the allegations of discrimination, it was stated that engagement orders had been issued only in favour of such candidates against whom no objections were raised and whose selections were to be genuine. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. The factum of the marriage of the petitioner and her residence with her husband has not been reflected in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, who in the title of the petitioner, is shown as daughter of Abdul Aziz and resident of Village Arai, tehsil Mandi, district Poonch. 11. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. The factum of the marriage of the petitioner and her residence with her husband has not been reflected in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, who in the title of the petitioner, is shown as daughter of Abdul Aziz and resident of Village Arai, tehsil Mandi, district Poonch. 11. There is conspicuous silence for obvious reasons regarding the petitioner's marriage and her residence post-marriage in the petition. Even after the objections filed by the respondents-State wherein a specific stand was taken that the petitioner was not a resident of mohalla Malikan and that she was resident of village Dabraj, tehsil Mendhar, no rejoinder was filed to contradict this fact. 12. In the absence of any specific denial of the objections raised by the State, the averment with regard to the petitioner not being a resident of Mohalla Mallikan, therefore, remains unrebutted. 13. From the record submitted by the official respondents, it can be seen that the Chief Development Project Officer, Mandi, district Poonch has clearly opined that upon such verification, the selected candidate, namely, Sameena Akhter, has been found to be not resident of the mohalla where the Anganwari Centre has been sanctioned and has been married in village Dabraj, tehsil Mendhar. 14. From the facts, which emerge on the basis of pleadings and the record, it can be clearly inferred that the petitioner is not residing in the village arid is not entitled for consideration for appointment as such Anganwari Worker. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed along with CM A No. 206/2009.