JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved of and has challenged the order dated 23rd August, 2022, passed by District Development Commissioner, Srinagar, in compliance to the directions issued by this Court on 20th July, 2022, in WP(C) No.1184/2022 [ 'the impugned order']. 2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the case set up by the petitioner, it is necessary to notice few facts relevant to the disposal of this petition. 3. The petitioner in response to advertisement notice dated 21st April, 2020 issued by District Programme Officer, ICDS, Srinagar, was allowed to run and manage 'One Stop Centre' at Srinagar for providing coordinated inter-agency response to women affected by violence at home or at work place etc. The action of ICDS was approved by the District Development Commissioner, Srinagar, vide order No.220 of 2020 dated 29th July, 2020. 4. Consequent upon the approval granted by the District Development Commissioner, Srinagar, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the petitioner society. As per Clause (16), the Memorandum of Understanding was to remain valid for a period of two years from the date of signing of Memorandum of Understanding. It was further extendable by two years subject to the appraisal/valuation of performance of the petitioner running OSC (Sakhi) project. 5. While the petitioner was yet to complete his term, the respondents came up with e-NIT dated 22nd April, 2022, inviting applications from reputed registered license holders for providing manpower to run the One Stop Centre at Srinagar. With the grievance that the petitioner was not allowed to complete his initial term of two years nor was he considered for further extension of two years, the petitioner approached this Court by way of WP(C) No.1352/2022. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 20.07.2022, with a direction to the District Development Commissioner, Srinagar, to evaluate the performance of the petitioner Society for the past two years and take appropriate decision with regard to the extension, if any, required to be given to the petitioner. 6. In compliance to the aforesaid judgment, the matter was considered by the District Development Commissioner, who, vide order impugned dated 23rd August, 2022, rejected the claim of the petitioner for extension being devoid of merit. It is this order which the petitioner has assailed in this petition. 7. Mr. 6. In compliance to the aforesaid judgment, the matter was considered by the District Development Commissioner, who, vide order impugned dated 23rd August, 2022, rejected the claim of the petitioner for extension being devoid of merit. It is this order which the petitioner has assailed in this petition. 7. Mr. Hakim Suhail Ishtiyaq, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the order impugned is not in tune with the judgment passed by this Court, in that, the respondent District Development Commissioner has not undertaken appraisal/evaluation of the performance of the petitioner Society for the last two years and has passed the impugned order arbitrarily. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the view that the order dated 23rd August, 2022, passed by the District Development Commissioner, impugned in this petition, is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by this Court, that too in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The District Development Commissioner has taken note of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the petitioner for running the One Stop Centre, which unequivocally provides that the organization will not assign, transfer, sub-contract or deal with any other manner with all or any of its rights or obligations under this MOU or any part thereof without the approval of the Government. The District Development Commissioner has further noticed that as per the advertisement notification, the human resources requirement of the One Stop Centre was clearly mentioned as Centre Administrator, Case Worker, Police Facilitation Centre, Para Legal Personnel/Lawyer, Para Medical Personnel, Psycho Social Counsellor, IT Personnel, Multipurpose Helper and Security/Nigh Guard whereas the petitioner had actually deployed only six candidates and, thus, omitting the important services of Psycho Social Counsellor, Para Medical Personnel, Multipurpose Helper, Night Guard. The District Development Commissioner has further taken note of the fact that on 12.12.2020, when the District Social Welfare Officer visited the One Stop Centre run by the petitioner, it was found closed and non-functional. The petitioner was put on explanation and his explanation was that his employees hired for running of the Centre had resigned and, therefore, functioning of the Centre had been closed. It was also taken note of by the District Development Commissioner that the petitioner was running the scheme from two places whereas, as per the norms, there ought to have been only 'One Stop Centre'. It was also taken note of by the District Development Commissioner that the petitioner was running the scheme from two places whereas, as per the norms, there ought to have been only 'One Stop Centre'. The District Development Commissioner taking note of all the aspect of the matter and after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to run the Centre as per the norms concluded that the petitioner had failed to run the Centre as per the norms. He, therefore, did not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same for extension. 9. The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Development Commissioner has passed the order impugned in violation of the judgment passed by this Court is not correct. What more could be appraisal and evaluation of performance of the petitioner than what has been noticed by the District Development Commissioner in the order. The manner in which the petitioner has been found running the One Stop Centre, as noticed in the impugned order by the District Development Commissioner, speaks volume about the work, conduct and performance of the petitioner. The engagement of the petitioner for running the Centre was only for a period of two years and the extension was subject to satisfactory performance. The District Development Commissioner has made ringside appraisal of the entire working of the petitioner and has concluded that the work and performance of the petitioner does not entitle him to the extension. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I find the consideration order impugned in this petition well-reasoned and well founded. The writ petition is dismissed along with connected CM being devoid of merit.