JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) “Certiorari quashing the order No.DPO/ICDS/Estt/2012/Bla/304-07 dated 08.05.2012 issued by the respondent No. 3 as also the enquiry report submitted by the so called enquiry team in terms of communication dated 25.03.2015. Further the engagement order, if any, issued in favour of the private respondent be also quashed. (ii) Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 5 to conduct fresh enquiry as mandated by the order passed by the Hon’ble court dated 23.09.2013 and accordingly pass appropriate orders with regard to reengagement of the petitioner as Aganwadi Worker in Aganwadi centre Ganie Mohalla Goripora Sopore. The respondents may be further directed to give all consequential and ancillary benefits to the petitioner”. 2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed and as are stated in the petition are that in terms of order dated 28.08.2010, petitioner came to be selected/engaged as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Ganie Mohalla Goripora, Sopore, where after an engagement order was issued in her favour in terms of order dated 12.10.2010. 3. It is stated that the selection of the petitioner vide order dated 23 rd August, 2010, came to be notified in a newspaper on 27 th August, 2010. 4. It is also stated that on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent 6 herein, the respondent 3 issued an order dated 08.05.2012, whereby the selection/engagement of the petitioner came to be cancelled. 5. It is further stated that aggrieved by cancellation of her selection/engagement, the petitioner herein preferred SWP No. 1023/2012, before this Court, followed by another petition being SWP No. 2297/2013, wherein the petitioner inter-alia challenged the cancellation of her selection/engagement also and writ petition 2297/2013, came to be disposed of by this Court on 23 rd September 2013, with a direction to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Barmulla to conduct an enquiry about the exact and actual residence of the petitioner as well as private respondent after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties and to proceed ahead with the selection/appointment on the basis of the report of enquiry of the respondent/Deputy Commissioner. 6. 6. It is being next stated that though the respondent-Deputy Commissioner did not initially conduct the enquiry which compelled the petitioner to file a contempt petition No. 409/2015 before this Court, in response thereto a status report came to be filed by the official respondents/contemnors wherein it was stated that the enquiry stands conducted and concluded in the matter and on the basis of the said enquiry, the petitioner was not found to be eligible for selection/engagement as Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Centre in question. 7. It is further stated that the petitioner after obtaining a copy of the said statement of facts, filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the respondent-Deputy Commissioner for furnishing copies of the letter dated 13.08.2014 and the enquiry report, whereupon the petitioner came to be furnished the said information on 14 th June, 2018 and subsequently challenged the same in the instant petition. 8. The petitioner herein has challenged in the instant petition the engagement of respondent 6 ordered vide order dated 08.05.2012 as also the enquiry report of the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, which enquiry came to be ordered by this Court upon disposal of the writ petition being SWP No. 2297/2013, disposed of on 23 rd September, 2013. 9. The petitioner while maintaining the instant petition has contended that she came to be appointed in the Agwanwadi Centre in question in terms of order dated 12.10.2010, being daughter of one Ghulam Hassan Bhat and being resident of Ganie Mohalla where the Anganwadi Centre was sanctioned and established. It is further the case of the petitioner herein that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sopore in his earlier report dated 10 th April, 2012, in the matter submitted to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner has specifically stated the said fact that the petitioner herein came to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker being the daughter of Ghulam Hassan Bhat and not wife of one Shahbaz Ahmad Bhat and that the State Subject Certificate, issued by him on 11.12.2010 in her favour stands cancelled by him, upon coming to know that no Nikha had been solemnized between the petitioner and the said Shahbaz Ahmad Bhat as per the Muslim Personal Law, except that an engagement ceremony had been performed which did not mature into a marriage on account of some family dispute. It is the further case of the petitioner in the instant petition that the enquiry conducted by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner has not been held in tune with the directions passed by this Court on dated 23 rd September, 2013, and that the said enquiry is sham and cannot be relied upon and that the disengagement of the petitioner came to be ordered by the respondents in disregard of the petitioner having been engaged as the daughter of Ghulam Hassan Bhat and a resident of Ganie Mohalla, Goripora and, as such, the enquiry report in question is not worth relying upon. 10. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents. 11. In the objections filed by respondents 1-4, it is being admitted that the petitioner initially was engaged as Anganwadi Worker in Angawani Centre Ganie Mohalla, Goriproa on 12.10.2010, however, on receipt of a complaint, qua her residence and production of PCR inasmuch as, after holding an enquiry by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sopore, the petitioner came to be disengaged on 08.05.2012. It is being further stated that the petitioner filed SWP No. 2297/2012, before this Court which came to be disposed of on 23 rd September, 2013, whereby a direction came to be passed in the name of Dy. Commissioner, Baramulla, requiring him to hold an enquiry in the matter about the exact and actual residence of the petitioner as well as of the respondent 6 herein, whereupon after providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties, the respondent-Deputy Commissioner concluded the enquiry on 18.11.2020, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is further stated that since the entire controversy in the matter revolves around the determination of question of facts which stands determined by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner cannot seek intervention of the Court for reconsideration of the same. 12. In the objections filed by respondent 6 herein, the factual aspect is being reiterated as has been stated by the petitioner as also by the official respondents in the petition and reply filed thereto respectively, as such, for the sake of brevity and in order to avoid repetition, the response filed by the respondent 5 is not being referred herein. However, the dismissal of the petition is being sought on the premise that the petition is not maintainable. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. However, the dismissal of the petition is being sought on the premise that the petition is not maintainable. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner while maintaining the initial petition being SWP No. 1023/2012, had called in question her disengagement order No. DPO/ICDS/Estt/2012/Bla/304-07 dated 08.05.2012, issued by respondent 3 herein. 14. Record also suggests that the petitioner has yet again challenged the same order of disengagement in the instant petition as well, besides challenging the enquiry report dated 25 th March, 2015. In presence of the challenge thrown to the disengagement order dated 8 th May, 2012, in the earlier petition being SWP No. 1023/2012, the petitioner could not have yet again challenge the same in the instant petition. It is significant to note here that the said petition of the petitioner stands disposed of by this Court on 3 rd July, 2021, by observing as under:- “Neither petitioner nor counsel present, seemingly the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, however, while making such Order the Court feels it proper to reserve the right of the petitioner to re-agitate the matter if the cause still survives by filing the motion seeking restoration of the writ petition. Writ petitioner is also at liberty to file representation before the competent authority for seeking consideration and decision. The consideration shall be made and decision taken in accordance with law and the norms governing the subject”. 15. Perusal of the record produced by counsel for the official respondents in compliance to order passed by this Court on 25 th February, 2025, would reveal that the Application Form filled-up by the petitioner for her engagement against the post in question specifically provides the name of the husband of the petitioner as Shahbaz Ahamd Bhat, besides a certificate to the effect stands also issued by the Tehsildar Sopore on 18 th June, 2010 under No. 515/N, certifying the present residence of the petitioner to be of village Goripora in Ganie Mohalla, however, the petitioner is shown to be wedded with said Shahbaz Ahmad Bhat. Besides, a certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sopore in the capacity as Prescribed Authority under the Act Xii of 1963, also reveals that the petitioner has been shown to be the wife of Shahbaz Ahmad Bhat, resident of village/Mohalla Goripore, Darpora, Sopore. 16. Record would also reveal that an enquiry had also been conducted by the officials of Social Welfare, Department wherein it had got revealed that the petitioner at the time of initiation of selection process for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker in Ganie Mohalla, Goripora was residing at Bhat Mohalla, Goripora and the said Mohalla is said to be the part of Panch- Ward 5, whereas the respondent 6 herein had been found to be the resident of Panch-Ward 6 of Ganie Mohalla and it had been concluded therein, the said enquiry that as per the reports of the Surpanch, Naib-Sarpanch and other Panchs, ward 5 of the Punch falls in the Bhat Mohalla whereas ward 6 of the Punch falls in Ganie Mohalla. 17. A deeper and closer examination of the enquiry conducted by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, impugned in the instant petition would reflect and reveal that the aforesaid position has been got ascertained by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner by constituting a committee which committee seemingly has conducted a threadbare enquiry and heard both the petitioner herein as well as respondent 6 and, inasmuch as, visited the spot in question and after making an analysis thereby concluded that the petitioner herein was not resident of Ganie Mohalla, Goripora at the time of issuance of advertisement notice. 18. 18. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, in particular that the factual issues/questions stand addressed and adverted to by a committee constituted by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner in compliance to the orders passed by this Court on 23 rd September,2023, inasmuch as, that the petitioner has maintained the instant petition, calling in question her disengagement order dated 8 th May, 2012, when the said disengagement order had been question by her in earlier writ petition as well, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has concealed and suppressed the said fact of having challenged the said disengagement order in the earlier petition, this Court is not inclined to display indulgence, owing to the reasons firstly, that adjudication of complicated disputed questions of facts is being sought in the instant petition, secondly, the petitioner herein has concealed the fact that she had earlier challenged her disengagement order dated 8 th May, 2012 in SWP No. 1023/2023, and yet again challenged the same in the instant petition which is not permissible in law. 19. The petition thus, in view of above is, dismissed and interim direction, if any, passed shall also stand vacated. 20. Record produced by the learned counsel for the respondents is returned back in the open Court. 21. Since the Deputy Commissioner during the process of holding aforesaid enquiry has made an observation that the petitioner could be considered against the post of Anganwadi Worker in her own village Delina, Baramulla, the dismissal of the instant petition shall not come in the way of the official respondents in considering the same in accordance with law.