JUDGMENT : Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J. These two writ petitions pertain to and raise a similar dispute for adjudication, both are taken up together for disposal, therefore, this judgment shall govern both. 2. In terms of advertisement notice no. DIPK-1457 dated 17.05.2008, applications were invited from the eligible female candidates for engagement of Anganwadi Workers on honorarium basis for Anganwadi Centre in the Panch wards of ICDS Project Anantnag. The petitioners’ of both the writ petitions applied for Anganwadi Centre Ward-13 along with all other eligible candidates. The selection process for the said post culminated into appointment of Mehjabeena Akhter, vide order No. 13 CDPOA of 2008 dated 18.08.2008. 3. The appointment of said Mehjabeena Akhter, however, upon being complained about by one of the competing candidates, Roomi Akhter, on the ground of eligibility, was cancelled for not being the resident of ward no. 13, and, accordingly, she was disengaged from services by the official respondents. 4. Aggrieved of the cancellation of her appointment, Mehjabeena Akhter challenged the same by way of a writ petition bearing SWP No. 366/2012. The writ petition, however, came to be dismissed in terms of judgment dated 09.11.2012 and respondents were directed to proceed with the selection in accordance with the Rules. 5. The order of the writ court was challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal, LPA No. 221/2012, which too has been dismissed in terms of order dated 16.05.2013. 6. Petitioner in SWP No. 876/2015, Roomi Akhter, had initially filed an application before the Competent Authority for cancellation of appointment of Mehjabeena Akhter and also the ward certificate issued in her favour. Upon inquiry, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, found that the case needs further scrutiny at the ground level and appointed the Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Anantnag, as inquiry officer for conducting a full dressed inquiry in presence of the parties. 7. Mehjabeena Akhter, filed a writ petition, SWP No. 564/2010 challenging the inquiry being conducted against her. The writ petition, however, was dismissed vide order dated 3rd May, 2011, being premature. The inquiry thereafter was continued and Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, reported that Mehjabeena Akhter is actually a resident of Bala Sarnal Ward-12. 7. Mehjabeena Akhter, filed a writ petition, SWP No. 564/2010 challenging the inquiry being conducted against her. The writ petition, however, was dismissed vide order dated 3rd May, 2011, being premature. The inquiry thereafter was continued and Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Anantnag, reported that Mehjabeena Akhter is actually a resident of Bala Sarnal Ward-12. The inquiry was thereafter taken over by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, who found in terms of order dated 16.02.2012, that the Ward Certificate that was issued in favour of Mehjabeena Akhter was fabricated and subsequently directed the official respondents to disengage Mehjabeena Akhter and consider the engagement of the petitioner in SWP no. 876/2015, Roomi Akhter. 8. In terms of the judgment of the Division Bench, the service of the Mehjabeena Akhter was disengaged and subsequent thereto, Roomi Akhter, petitioner in SWP no. 876/2015, was offered engagement against the post in question in light of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, and on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court on May 7th 2015, in SWP No. 876/2015, which, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:- “MP 01/2015. MP is disposed of and respondents are directed to implement the order dated 16.02.2012, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, as the writ petition and LPA, challenging the said order have been dismissed.” 9. It is seen from the record that Vide order No. 01/2017 dated 20.06.2017, in compliance to the order of the Court dated 07.05.2015, Roomi Akhter, petitioner in SWP No 876/2015, was engaged as Anganwadi worker for Anganwadi Centre Iqbalabad Ward Peheroo. The engagement of Roomi Akhter was, however, subject to following conditions:- 1. “The term of engagement is till the scheme is run by the Government of India/State government. 2. The engagement is liable to be cancelled without issuing notice if, on the verification any of the relevant certificates is found fake or fraud. 3. The engagement is liable to be cancelled, if it comes to the notice that the AWW is a regular student in any institution during services. 4. The engagement is also liable to be cancelled, if any other candidate having better merit has been left out due to oversight or otherwise. 5. The engagement is also liable to be cancelled, if it comes to the notice that the A.W. Worker misappropriates or is in subordination. 6. 4. The engagement is also liable to be cancelled, if any other candidate having better merit has been left out due to oversight or otherwise. 5. The engagement is also liable to be cancelled, if it comes to the notice that the A.W. Worker misappropriates or is in subordination. 6. The candidate shall be allowed to join only after production of the following certificates in original (a) Date of Birth Certificate/Marks Sheet 10th Class issued by JKBOSE or equivalent from recognized institution (b) PRC issued by competent authority (c) unemployment certificate (d) Health Certificate. 7. The candidate has to execute an agreement/affidavit on Judicial Stamp Paper Duly attested by 1st Class Judicial Magistrate regarding the terms and conditions laid down above in the engagement order.” 10. The engagement order of Roomi Akhter as Anganwadi Worker issued vide order No. 01/2017 dated 20.06.2017, has been challenged by one Tasleema Jan in a writ petition, SWP No. 1002/2018, on the ground that she is more meritorious candidate in the merit list and has secured 50.26 marks as compared to Roomi Akhter who has secured only 43.93 marks. The petitioner in SWP No. 1002/2018 has stated that she made a representation to the respondents and stated therein that she being now only the most meritorious candidate left in Ward-13, as such, she be engaged as per merit obtained by her. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the first representation was moved before the competent authority by the petitioner Tasleema Jan on 17th March 2015 followed by one more on 4th April 2017. He submits that when no action was taken by the respondents for finalizing the selection for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre-13 Peheroo Anantnag, the petitioner, Tasleema Jan, approached this Court by way of writ petition bearing No. SWP 1465/2017, which was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 31st July, 2017, with the direction to the respondent no. 4 therein to finalize the selection process in accordance with the merit, applicable scheme and rules governing the field within a period of six weeks. 12. 4 therein to finalize the selection process in accordance with the merit, applicable scheme and rules governing the field within a period of six weeks. 12. In Clause 4 of the Engagement Order, passed in favour of the Roomi Akhter dated 24.06.2017, it was categorically mentioned that the appointment of Roomi Akther is liable to be cancelled if any other candidate, having better merit, has been left out due to oversight or otherwise. 13. Accordingly, the petitioner brought to the knowledge of this Court by way of SWP No. 1002/2018 that the private respondent is not the most meritorious candidate and due to some mistake, the merit of the petitioner has been ignored and petitioner who is having more merit than Roomi Akhter deserves to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker. 14. Thereafter, it appears that, the respondent no. 3 communicated to respondent no. 4, vide communication No. PS/DPO/ICDS/Ang/2018/48 dated 09.04.2018 to implement the orders of the court in accordance with the norms and rules and issue orders in favour of the petitioner in case her case is genuine as she claims to have higher merit than Roomi Akhter. 15. Objections were filed by the official respondents to the said writ petition stating therein at para 3 that the post in question has been advertised in the year 2008 and after completion of the selection process one candidate namely Mehjabeena Akhter was engaged as Anganwadi Worker on 18.08.2008, which was assailed by one of the candidates namely Roomi Akhter before Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, who, after holding detailed inquiry issued an order dated 16.02.2012 inter alia holding that Mehjabeena Akhter was not the resident of concerned ward and had manipulated the records to grab the post, therefore, declared her engagement order as Anganwadi worker for Ward No. 13 as null and void. 16. The Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, also directed that candidature of Roomi Akhter, petitioner in SWP no. 876/2015, be considered for engagement. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, was challenged before this Court by Mehjabeena Akhter by way of writ petition bearing SWP No. 366/2018, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2012. LPA No. 221/2012 preferred against the said Writ Court Order dated 09.11.2012, was also dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2013 maintaining the order of the Writ Court as also of the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. LPA No. 221/2012 preferred against the said Writ Court Order dated 09.11.2012, was also dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2013 maintaining the order of the Writ Court as also of the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. It is also stated in the objections that the said Roomi Akhter also filed writ petition, SWP No. 876/2015, and this Court, in terms of interim order dated 07.05.2015, while disposing of application MP No. 01/2015, directed the respondents to implement the order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. The respondents in compliance to the interim order dated 07.05.2015 supra and of the Deputy Commissioner, issued order dated 20.06.2017 thereby engaging Roomi Akhter as Anganwadi worker in Iqbalabad Peheroo. However, the order of engagement of the Roomi Akhter as Anganwadi Worker has been stayed by this Court by way of interim order dated 11.05.2018 passed in SWP No. 1002/2018 filed by petitioner, Tasleema Jan. The respondents stated that they had to make some alternate arrangements to run the centre for benefit of the beneficiaries and as such additional charge of the Anganwadi Centre was assigned to another Anganwadi Worker of the area and presently no Angandwari Worker is engaged for the Anganwadi centre in question. The petitioner, Tasleema Jan, had approached this Court in the year 2018, whereas, admittedly the selection process had been initiated in the year 2008 and litigation had started immediately after engagement of Mehjabeen Akhter but the petitioner remained silent spectator during all these years and approached this Court in the year 2018. 17. Admit. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions, made. 18. Admittedly, Tasleema Jan, who figured at S. No. 17 in the list of applicants who applied in terms of the advertisement supra for Ward-13, had secured 50.26 total marks, whereas, Roomi Akhter who figured at S. No. 33 therein had secured total 43.93 marks. In the list of applicants who had applied for the said ward, there were as many as 3-4 applicants who had secured higher marks than Tasleema Jan but they did not choose to join the proceedings. In the list of applicants who had applied for the said ward, there were as many as 3-4 applicants who had secured higher marks than Tasleema Jan but they did not choose to join the proceedings. Selection in question had commenced in the year 2008, in terms of advertisement Notice No. DIPK-1457 dated 17.05.2008, Roomi Akhter who was lower in merit had contested the litigation and succeeded in disengaging the services of Mehjabeena Akhter who was more meritorious than Roomi Akhter but did not belong to the ward for which the post was meant. 19. As per the order passed in the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, dated 16.02.2012, there is a specific reference for consideration of engagement of Roomi Akther, as taken note of hereinbefore. 20. Tasleema Jan never approached the concerned authorities before 2017, though she was aware of the legal battle going on between Mehjabeena Akhter and Roomi Akhter, but chose to remain a fence sitter for last so many years. 21. The official respondents seemingly have taken refuge in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, and further in the interim order dated 7th May, 2015 passed by this Court in Roomi Akhter’s case bearing SWP No. 876/2015, and engaged Roomi Akhter vide order dated 20.06.2017. 22. Mr. Sheikh Feroz, learned Dy AG, had made a statement at Bar and averred in his objections as well that as on date no one has been appointed as Anganwadi Worker in the said ward and only an interim arrangement has been made by the respondents for running the said centre. 23. The selection process initiated for the post in question in the year 2008 had culminated in the engagement of Roomi Akhter in the year 2017 but till date, because of the pendency of the litigation, none of the candidates is actually holding the post to run the Anganwadi Centre. 24. True it is that the petitioner, Tasleema Jan, had chosen to approach the court in the year 2018 when Roomi Akhter, though comparatively lower in merit, had managed to disengage the services of a selected candidate namely Mehjabeena Akhter by an established act of law, but the plea taken in support of such delay by the petitioner, Tasleema Jan, that she had approached the Competent Authorities with the representations seeking engagement against the post in question, have remained uncontroverted, therefore, cannot be brushed aside. 25. 25. In the above background and having regard to the material made available as also to the long litigation on the subject, both the writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner: i) The respondents shall consider the claim of both the candidates, Roomi Akhter and Tasleema Jan, in respect of their engagement as Angan Wari Worker for the Anganwadi Centre in question. Both the petitioners shall be associated with the consideration process by allowing them to put forward their stand effectively. ii) The engagement of the Roomi Akhter made in terms of order dated 20.06.2017 in the circumstances cannot withstand, therefore, same is quashed. iii) The respondents shall issue an engagement order in favour of the candidate who emerges out to be more suitable for the post in question in reference to the merit cum suitability and of course in accordance with the applicable norms. iv) The requisite exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from today. 26. Before parting with the file, it is recorded herein that the present litigation is more attributable to the callous attitude of the concerned department than it being an act of the aggrieved individual, for, initially, the respondents without ascertaining the genuineness of the certificate of one Mehjabeena Akhter engaged her as Anganwari worker for the ward in question. Later on, again without bothering themselves much to see as to who is more meritorious, and suitable candidate for the post in question, took refuge in the Deputy Commissioner’s order as also in the interim order of this Court passed in SWP no. 876/2015 and engaged Roomi Akhter when it was well within their knowledge that there are candidates who are more meritorious, therefore, more suitable for the post, than the said Roomi Akhter. It is because of such lackadaisical approach of the respondents that the present petitioners are entangled in litigation and that the post has remained unfilled. The present litigation and the mess created, therefore, is solely an outcome of an administrative incongruity. This kind of litigation would never come into being if a little diligence is shown by the concerned towards their duties. Let this serve as a lesson for the respondents in future. 27. The writ petitions are disposed of, along with all CMs, on the above lines. 28. This kind of litigation would never come into being if a little diligence is shown by the concerned towards their duties. Let this serve as a lesson for the respondents in future. 27. The writ petitions are disposed of, along with all CMs, on the above lines. 28. Registry shall place a copy of this judgment on each file and send a copy of it to all the official respondents for compliance.