JUDGMENT : Mr. Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. SWP No. 63/2010, MP Nos. 629/2010 and 65/2010 Heard. Considered. 2. Vide advertisement notice dated 28.04.2008 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Banihal (Member/Secretary Selection Committee), applications on prescribed proforma were invited from eligible female candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Workers on honorarium basis for 29 Anganwadi Centres as referred to therein in the advertisement. Amongst others, petitioners had also applied. 3. The selection Committee constituted comprised of District Social Welfare Officer, Ramban (Convener), Block Development Officer, Banihal (Member), Medical Officer, Banihal (Member) and Child Development Project Officer, Banihal as Member Secretary. After conducting the interview, they had prepared a provisional select list which was published; later on a select list was also published by the Member Secretary, (Child Development Project Officer, Banihal). 4. As against the selection list, there have been certain complaints. Assistant Commissioner Development Ramban had been appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry into the alleged irregularities in selection of Anganwadi Workers in Banihal Block and Ukral Block. 5. This petition is vis-a-vis Anganwadi Workers of Banihal Block. The Assistant Commissioner Development Ramban has submitted the inquiry report under No. ACDR/Enq./2008-09/1762 dated 16.02.2009. In respect of Block Banihal has observed that 40 Anganwadi Centres were sanctioned. For 40 posts of Anganwadi Workers, 688 applications were received whereas 414 candidates appeared in the interview. Application forms of these candidates were scrutinized and it was found that 414 candidates who appeared in the interview were without ward certificates issued by the Competent Authority (BDO concerned) but they had the ward certificates issued by Lamberdar/Chowkidar/Ex-Sarpanch and other officials of RDD. Only 12 applications were having valid ward certificates issued by the competent authority. It is further observed that selection committee has made selection by considering merit of the candidates as per Government Order No. 128 SW of 2008 dated 24.03.2008 without adopting proper procedure/criteria framed by the Social Welfare Department/notified by the Directorate of concerned department. 6. It is also observed that District Social Welfare Officer (Convener) in his written statement has made it clear that the controversial select list of Anganwadi Workers of Block Banihal was published by Child Development Project Officer, Banihal without his consent/signatures, he has already intimated the Directorate of Social Welfare on 24.09.2008 regarding cancellation of the proposed select list of Block Banihal. The Inquiry Officer has further observed that the merit list of Block Banihal is without the signatures of the District Social Welfare Officer (Convener) and the BDO the Co-opting member. In addition thereto it has been observed that the concerned CDPO, Banihal (Member/Secretary), selection committee who had issued the select list was placed under suspension and it is during suspension he had issued the select list. The Inquiry officer had concluded as under: "I am of the opinion that, the proper selection procedure has not been followed while making the selection of the candidates as per laid down criteria notified by the Government/Directorate of Social Welfare". 7. Said Inquiry report dated 16.02.2009 is under challenge in the writ petition. 8. Vide Government Order No. 272-SW of 2009 dated 15.12.2009, the selection of Anganwadi Workers made in respect of ICDS Project Banihal has been cancelled and fresh applications were directed to be invited by the Committee constituted for the purpose. This Government Order is also under challenge. 9. Vide Communication No. DSWJ/ICDS/98/Selection/09 dated 23.12.2009, Director, Social Welfare Department, Jammu has conveyed to the Nodal Officer, Ramban that the process of selection of Anganwadi Workers may be initiated after inviting the fresh application forms and the process shall be completed within one month. This order too is under challenge in the writ petition. 10. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the provisional select list was signed by all the members including the convener. For ascertaining this fact, learned Dy. AG has produced the record including the provisional select list, same bears the signatures of District Social Welfare Officer (Convener), Block Development Officer, Banihal (Member), Medical Officer (member) and of the CDPO, Banihal (Member/Secretary). In addition thereto, the photocopies of the interview sheets of all candidates also bear the signatures of all these officers. Therefore the contention that the provisional select list or interview sheets did not bear the signatures of the members of the committee is without any substance. 11. According to learned Dy. AG, in pursuance to the decision taken, fresh advertisement notice was issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Banihal (Member/Secretary) on 26.02.2010. The candidates including the petitioners also participated in the process. The process of selection has been concluded and provisional selection list has been prepared which has not been issued in view of pendency of this writ petition. AG, in pursuance to the decision taken, fresh advertisement notice was issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Banihal (Member/Secretary) on 26.02.2010. The candidates including the petitioners also participated in the process. The process of selection has been concluded and provisional selection list has been prepared which has not been issued in view of pendency of this writ petition. Said selection process, pursuant to order dated 05.02.2010 was subject to the outcome of the CMP. 12. Three important issues emerge for consideration: (a) When the earlier process of selection was initiated, candidates were interviewed, provisional selection list was prepared and signed by all the members whether that could be ignored?; (b) Whether fresh notification could be issued? (c) Whether the petitioners after participating in the fresh process of selection can challenge it? 13. A strange situation absolutely disadvantageous not only to the concerned localities but also to the aspirants who but for litigative process would have been engaged as Anganwadi Workers. The object of the social welfare scheme directly or indirectly has been offended by delay. 14. The Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 16.02.2009 had observed that the proper procedure/criteria was not followed, some of the candidates had not produced the proper ward certificates and then had concluded that proper selection procedure has not been followed while making the selection of the candidates as per the laid down criteria notified by the government/Directorate of Social Welfare. When this was the report of the Inquiry Officer, what was required to be done is a question which is now required to be determined. 15. The proper course in the light of the report of the Assistant Commissioner Development Ramban (Enquiry Officer) was to subject the same candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 28.04.2008 for selection in accordance with the laid down criteria notified by the Government Order/Directorate of Social Welfare and in the process their eligibility was also to be determined. There was no occasion for issuing fresh advertisement notice, nor there was any solid basis or foundation for issuing fresh notification. Therefore, the Government Order No. 272 SW of 2009 dated 15.12.2009 to the extent it provides for fresh applications to be invited is set aside. There was no occasion for issuing fresh advertisement notice, nor there was any solid basis or foundation for issuing fresh notification. Therefore, the Government Order No. 272 SW of 2009 dated 15.12.2009 to the extent it provides for fresh applications to be invited is set aside. Similarly, the Communication dated 23.12.2009 issued by Director, Social Welfare Department, Jammu asking Nodal Officer for initiating fresh process of selection after inviting fresh application too will not survive, as a result whereof the process initiated vide advertisement Notice dated 26.02.2010 shall be ignored. Even though some of the petitioners may have participated, same is irrelevant, because fresh process so initiated was against the law. 16. Now the question is what is now to be done by the respondents authorities. The respondents authorities in effect shall direct the constituted Select Committee to ascertain as to whether they have followed the procedure and notified criteria while awarding marks to the candidates during the course of the interview, if yes, then they have to proceed further on that basis, otherwise they shall hold the interview afresh of all such candidates. 17. while proceeding further in pursuance to the process of selection initiated vide advertisement notice of 2008, the constituted committee shall strictly adhere to the norms, criteria and the object of the scheme and to finalise the process of selection within a period of two months. 18. Record as produced by learned Dy. AG be returned to him. 19. Disposed of as above, along with connected MPs. SWP No. 62/2010, MP Nos. 64/2010 & 166/2010: SWP No. 62/2010 be detached and be listed in the next available regular cause list.