JUDGMENT : 1. The Child Development Project Officer (ICDS) Project, Ramsoo, vide Advertisement Notice No. DIP/J-625, dated 28.04.2008, invited applications from the eligible female candidates for engagement as Anganwadi workers on honorarium basis for Anganwadi Centres in the different Panch constituencies falling under ICDS Project (Ramsoo) Ukhral. 2. The petitioner being eligible and belonging to ST category also applied for the post of Anganwadi worker advertised for Anganwadi Centre at Ward No. 1, Mohalla Batroo, Panchayat Halqa, Phagmulla. 3. As per the criteria laid down in the advertisement notice, the applicant must be a permanent resident of J&K State and also belonging to the concerned Panchayat in rural area or concerned ward in urban area where the Anganwadi centre is located. Only those candidates who are residing in the concerned Panchayat constituency ward shall be eligible to apply and no qualification ban for reserved categories was prescribed. The petitioner belonging to Scheduled Category applied for the said post and along with her application, she also annexed her residence certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Ramsoo. The residence certificates issued by the Numberdar of Halqa Pogal and Halqa Panchal along with the residence certificate issued by the Chowkidar of Halqa Pogal were also submitted. 4. It is contended that along with the petitioner, two more candidates namely Sakeena Begum (petitioner's sister) and respondent No. 5, Mst. Zaitoon Begum W/o Mohd. Rafiq R/o Batroo Phagmula, Tehsil Banihal, District Ramban also applied for the post of Anganwadi worker in the said centre. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee and was accordingly interviewed for the post. The selection list was published on 22.09.2008 in the news paper, however, the selection for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Batroo (ST) was withheld. It appears that the reason for withholding the post was that the respondent No. 5 had raised the dispute regarding the residence of the petitioner. The petitioner immediately thereafter inquired from respondents, who informed her that an objection was raised by private respondent No. 5 regarding her residence. It is submitted by the petitioner that she has been informed that Selection Committee had awarded her highest points, i.e. 22.75, whereas respondent No. 5 had only obtained 20.52 points, respondent No. 3 was given only 18.52 points. It is submitted by the petitioner that she has been informed that Selection Committee had awarded her highest points, i.e. 22.75, whereas respondent No. 5 had only obtained 20.52 points, respondent No. 3 was given only 18.52 points. The petitioner thus got the highest points amongst other candidates for being selected and appointed as Anganwadi worker for Anganwadi Centre, Batroo (ST) of Panchayat Halqa, Phagmula. 5. The petitioner was, however, informed that the Block Development Officer, Ramsoo has written a letter, cancelling her residence certificate. It is urged that without giving her any opportunity of being heard the concerned Block Development Officer has cancelled her residence certificate, the same is arbitrary, illegal and is also violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner thus seeks a direction for quashing the letter issued by respondent No. 6 whereby the residence certificate issued to the petitioner stands cancelled. The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to select and appoint her as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Batroo (ST) Panch constituency Ward No. 1 of Panchayat Halqa, Phagmula with all consequential benefits. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that she submitted a certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Ramsoo which certified that she is a resident of Panch Constituency, Batroo, ward No. 1, Panchayat Phagmulla of Block Ramsoo. This certificate was submitted by her to the respondents along with her documents. The respondents, however, informed her that the residence certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Ramban stands cancelled. 7. It is stated that despite petitioner's repeated requests the B.D.O., Ramsoo did not issue the letter whereby her residence certificate has been cancelled. As per the submission of petitioner, she is the resident of Panch constituency ward No. 1 of Panchayat Halqa, Phagmula where the said Anganwadi centre is located and thus is entitled to be considered for the post of Anganwadi Helper in the area. The respondents without any justification have withheld the selection and have accepted the letter issued by the B.D.O treating her residence certificate as cancelled. The Block Development Officer has cancelled her residence certificate without giving her any opportunity of being heard. 8. It is stated that petitioner along with her family is living with her mother as Khana Nasheen daughter and the husband of the petitioner as Khana Damad. The Block Development Officer has cancelled her residence certificate without giving her any opportunity of being heard. 8. It is stated that petitioner along with her family is living with her mother as Khana Nasheen daughter and the husband of the petitioner as Khana Damad. She submits that petitioner has also been clearly reflected and shown in the voter list for 2002, 2005 and even 2008 and 2006. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 6, B.D.O., Ramsoo has cancelled the residence certificate of the petitioner and with held the selection process without affording an opportunity of being heard to her and also without associating her husband and family, as such, same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice. 9. The official respondents - 1, 4 and 6 in their objections, however, submit that the petitioner is not a resident of the Batroo village, as such, she was not even eligible to apply much less to be selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker in the aforesaid centre. They further submit that the petitioner never submitted documents which are annexed with the petition in their office. These documents, in any case, according to them are not a proof of the fact of migration of the husband of the petitioner from his residence to the present place. The petitioner has failed to provide any authentic/cogent/mandatory documentary proof of her husband's migration. According to the respondents, the petitioner had obtained residence certificate wrongfully, fraudulently and, therefore, the same was rightfully cancelled by respondent No. 6 on verification of the actual residence of the petitioner. The respondents have placed on record the Communication No. 778-89, dated 11.02.2009, which states that as per verification from the record and reported by the field staff the ward certificate issued in favour of Shabeena Begum W/o Mohd. Youssaf R/o Batroo Panchayat Panchall has been cancelled. Their further stand is that the name of the petitioner is found registered in the voter list of Mohalla Dhanmasta and does not figure in the voter list of Phagmulla. 10. The respondent No. 5, Mst. Zaitoon Begum in her objections submits that the petitioner is married to Mohd Yousuf, who is a resident of Village Dhanmasta and ever since their marriage the petitioner has migrated to Village Dhanmasta. 10. The respondent No. 5, Mst. Zaitoon Begum in her objections submits that the petitioner is married to Mohd Yousuf, who is a resident of Village Dhanmasta and ever since their marriage the petitioner has migrated to Village Dhanmasta. Respondent No. 5 has denied that husband of the petitioner is a Khana Damad and the petitioner is Khana Nasheen daughter in Village Batroo, Phagmula, Ward No. 1. Respondent No. 5 in her objections has further submitted that as the petitioner is from other Village and is trying to usurp the post and is creating hurdles in the way of replying respondents by manipulating and forging the record. Respondent No. 5 also stated that so called certificates obtained from Chowkidars and Nambardars are manipulated and the Block Development Officer, Ramsoo has rightly cancelled the residence certificate of the petitioner after a thorough enquiry. 11. This petition involves disputed questions of fact, as such, this court cannot go into the disputed questions of law and same needs to be brought to its logical end by the concerned Deputy Commissioner in terms of Government Order No. 07 SW of 2010, dated 18.01.2010, which provides filing of the appeal by the aggrieved party. 12. The said Government Order provides that whenever any body feels aggrieved with the selection of Anganwadi Worker or with the mode and manner of selection of the Hamlet, an appeal shall be preferred to the Deputy commissioner concerned within 30 days from the date of selection of Anganwadi Worker or the date of identification of location of the Hamlet for the setting up of Anganwadi Centre and the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall dispose of the appeal within 15 days thereafter from the date of the receipt of the appeal after conducting an enquiry. 13. Considering the plea raised by the petitioner that she is a Khana Nasheen daughter and her husband is also Khana Damad and they are staying in Village Batroo, Ward No. 1, Phagmulla, as also keeping in view the stand of the respondents taken in their the objections, petitioner is directed to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ramban within 30 days after getting certified copy of the order projecting her grievance as regards the actual residence, and the Deputy Commissioner concerned on receipt of the same, shall hold an inquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also to respondent No. 5. On the basis of inquiry so to be conducted, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass a speaking order as regard the actual residence of the petitioner and the same shall be conveyed to the CDPO, Ramsoo, who shall proceed ahead with the selection process in accordance with the inquiry report of the Deputy Commissioner, Ramban. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.