CWP No. 593 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 593 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: August 04, 2010 Jagjit Kaur .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate, for respondent no. 6. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 31.12.2008 endorsed on 07.01.2009 placed on record as Annexure P-13. 2. Vide order Annexure P-13, Deputy Commissioner has held that the selection process appears to be vitiated and, therefore, selection is set aside. CDPO is directed to invite fresh applications for filling the post of Anganwari Worker. 3. When the matter was heard on 26.07.2010, the scope of the writ CWP No. 593 of 2009 2 was narrowed down in the following terms:- “It has been brought out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one post of Anganwari Worker was to be filled up, as per communication dated 14.5.2007 (Annexure P- 1), addressed by the Child Development and Panchayat Officer, Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur, to Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Mallianwal. The Munadi for inviting applications to fill the aforesaid post was made on 15.5.2007. Five applications were received. The merit of the petitioner being higher, the petitioner was appointed. Respondent no. 6 objected to the appointment of the petitioner and took a stand that the Munadi was not done and, therefore, she could not apply. Be that as it may, two petitions came to be filed by respondent No. 6, on which directions were issued to the official respondents to consider the representations. Vide the first order passed by the Child Development and Panchayat Officer, it was held that Munadi was indeed done and the appointment of the petitioner was as per merit (refer to Annexure P-10, pages 43 to 46). In response to the order passed in the second writ petition, the impugned order (Annexure P-13) has been passed, wherein a conclusion has been dawn that the Munadi was not done and, therefore, the appointment is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that respondent no. 6 is stated to have filed the CWP No. 593 of 2009 3 application on 14.4.2007 (Annexure P-9). No cognizance of the same could have been taken because the Munadi for inviting the applications was done on 15.5.2007. Adjourned to 4.08.2010. Let the original record be summoned.” 4. The original record has been produced. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that indeed respondent no. 6 had not filed any application. 6. As per pleadings on behalf of the petitioner, vide letter dated 14.05.2007, Gram Panchayat, Village Mallianwal was directed to invite applications from permanent residents of that village for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker and forward the applications to respondent no. 4 for further necessary action. Gram Panchayat through Chowkidar got a Munadi conducted on 15.05.2007 inviting applications. The petitioner being eligible and suitable, applied alongwith four other contestants. 7. Vide resolution dated 18.05.2007, the applications were forwarded to Child Development and Project Officer, Kalanaur for necessary action. A merit list was prepared in accordance with instructions applicable for selection of Anganwari Workers. The petitioner being the most meritorious candidate, was appointed as Anganwari Worker vide order Annexure P-8 dated 31.07.2007. 8. It seems that respondent no. 6-Ms. Harwant Kaur wanted to be appointed as Anganwari Worker and, therefore, filed CWP No. 1529 of 2008. The case projected by the said respondent before this Court in the said writ petition is that she (respondent no. 6) filed an application on 14.04.2007 addressed to Child Development Officer, Kalanaur. The CWP No. 593 of 2009 4 application has been placed on record as Annexure P-9. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.02.2008 directing the respondents to have a decision on the legal notice. 9. The averments made in this writ petition in para no. 9 that the respondent no. 6 had filed an application for appointment as Anganwari Worker on 14.04.2007, are not disputed in the reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 6. All that has bee stated in response to para no. 9 is that contents of para no. 9 of the writ petition need no reply. 10. The Child Development and Project Officer, in deference to orders passed by this Court in Writ petition Mo. 1529 of 2008, issued notices to all the persons likely to the affected. Respondent no. 6, however, refused to make any statement before the said authority. Be that as it may, Child Development and Project Officer, Kalanaur, vide its report dated 15.04.2008 placed on record as Annexure P-10, deduced in the following terms:- “After scrutiny of record of the post of Anganwari Worker village Mallianwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, it has been found that Sarpanch, Gram panchayat has given a certificate in which Munadi was done before receiving the application for the post of Anganwari Worker. From the above facts it proves that after conducting the Munadi in the Village application of eligible candidates have been received, and Gram Panchayat Mallianwal sent these applications to the Office of Child Development Project Officer, Kalanaur. The allegation leveled by Petitioner Smt.Harwant Kaur wife of Parminder Singh, resident of village Mallianwal, Tehsil and CWP No. 593 of 2009 5 District Gurdaspur, in legal notice Annexure P-7 are proved to be wrong. It is clear that Petitioner Smt.Harwant Kaur wife of Parminder Singh resident of Village Mallianwal acted negligently by not giving her application to the Gram Panchayat within the stipulated period, therefore, Smt.Harwant Kaur wife of Parminder Singh, resident of Village Mallianwal has no right for the post of Anganwari Worker. From the applications received within the stipulated period, the appointment of Smt. Jagjit Kaur wife of Lakhbir Singh as Anganwari Worker has been done on merit after following proper procedure rules.” 11. The selection process accordingly was upheld and the appointment of the petitioner was endorsed. The allegations made by respondent no. 6 have been held to be false. 12. It seems that respondent no. 6 filed yet another writ petition bearing No. 15494 of 2008. This Court vide order dated 02.09.2009 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur to pass a speaking order on an application submitted by the said respondent. The Deputy Commissioner, however, gave a contradictory finding vide the impugned order, which is under challenge in these proceedings. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the strength of the record, makes a clear statement that indeed Munadi was conducted. Respondent no. 6 did not file any application for selection as none is available on the record. 14. The report furnished by Child Development and Project Officer also endorses the fact that Munadi was conducted. There is no explanation CWP No. 593 of 2009 6 coming forth in the impugned order Annexure P-13 of Deputy Commissioner as to if Munadi was not conducted, how a number of applicants applied for the post of Anganwari Worker, which were forwarded to the authorities by the Panchayat for selection. The report/impugned order Annexure P-13 indicates that the Deputy Commissioner seemed to have been more influenced by the better merit of respondent no. 6. The report, in totality of facts and circumstances, cannot be accepted as depicting the correct picture. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court fails to understand as to under what circumstances respondent no. 6 made an assertion before this Court that respondent no. 6 had filed an application on 14.04.2007. When the Munadi inviting applications for selection as Anganwari Worker was conducted on 15.05.2007, respondent no. 6 had no occasion to file an application on 14.04.2007. Be that as it may, there being no application filed on behalf of the said respondent on the record and an Officer of the Court having made a statement on behalf of the respondent- State that Munadi was conducted, the order passed by Deputy Commissioner Annexure P-13 dated 31.12.2008, is found to be baseless. 16. The petition is accordingly allowed. 04.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?