Anganwadi Appointment Dispute: Jammu Kashmir High Court Sets Aside 2016 Single Judge Order | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has allowed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Fatima Bano, setting aside a 2016 judgment of the Single Judge and upholding her selection as an Anganwadi Worker for Panchayat Halqa Kathpora in Kulgam district.

The Division Bench of Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem pronounced the judgment on March 25, 2026, in LPASW No. 134/2018, overturning the earlier order dated May 12, 2016 passed in SWP No. 2059/2009.

The case traces back to an engagement made in October 2005, when Shagufta Shaheen was selected as an Anganwadi Worker for the Nadimarg (Hangal Buch) centre during Phase-I expansion under an advertisement issued on February 17, 2005. However, following the migration of minority community residents from Nadimarg after a militancy-related incident in 2003, the Anganwadi Centre was rendered non-functional and subsequently relocated.

During this period, a fresh advertisement was issued on December 18, 2009 under the Phase-II relocation programme for Panchayat Halqa Kathpora. Fatima Bano, a resident of Kathpora, applied and was selected, while Shaheen did not participate in the process and instead challenged the advertisement, asserting continuity of her earlier engagement.

The Single Judge had ruled in favour of Shaheen, holding that her 2005 appointment continued to subsist in the absence of any formal cancellation order and quashed the 2009 advertisement as arbitrary. The court had also granted her protection to continue and receive honorarium.

Challenging this finding, counsel for the appellant, SR Hussain, argued that Shaheen, being a resident of Hangal Buch, was not eligible for the Kathpora post and had, in fact, surrendered her claim following migration. The appellant relied on an RTI-based communication dated June 29, 2016 issued by the Tehsildar, Yaripora, which clarified that Hangal Buch and Kathpora fall under distinct revenue villages and separate Panchayat Halqas.

On the other side, the respondents, represented by Government Advocate Waseem Gul and counsel Rizwan-ul-Zaman, defended the Single Judge’s reasoning, maintaining that Shaheen’s appointment had never been formally terminated and therefore continued to hold the field.

Rejecting this contention, the Division Bench held that “the principle of subsistence of right cannot be applied in abstraction when the very basis of engagement—the functioning of the original Centre—stood displaced due to relocation and restructuring under a distinct administrative unit.” The court noted that Shaheen had acknowledged surrendering her claim and had neither applied pursuant to the 2009 advertisement nor demonstrated that the new post was identical to her earlier engagement.

The Bench further observed that the Phase-II advertisement was “a valid and independent exercise confined to residents of that Halqa,” and that Shaheen, not being a resident of Kathpora, was ineligible to claim the post.

Holding that the Single Judge had erred in quashing the advertisement and extending protection to Shaheen, the court declared Fatima Bano’s appointment pursuant to the December 18, 2009 notification as “valid and lawful,” and ruled that Shaheen had no subsisting claim over the post.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of, with the 2016 judgment set aside.