CWP No.20159 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.20159 of 2008 Date of Decision: 03.05.2010 **** Nidhi . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner impugns the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 as Anganwadi Worker of village Ali Khan, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, primarily on the ground that she had also applied but her application was not forwarded by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Ali Khan as respondent No.6 is alleged to be a relative of the said Sarpanch. It is further averred that the petitioner is a Graduate and has a preferential right over and above respondent No.6 who is only 10+2 qualified and is not even permanent resident of village Ali Khan. CWP No.20159 of 2008.doc - 2 – (2). Respondent No.6 has, however, denied the second allegation and claims herself to be a native of the same village. (3). Be that as it may, both the factual issues raised by the petitioner in support of her challenge to the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 deserve to be verified and ascertained from the relevant original records. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Director, Department of Social Security Women and Child Development, Chandigarh, to summon the relevant records and thereafter decide the inter se claim of the parties, preferably after hearing them and by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (4). Ordered accordingly. (5). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 03.05.2010 vishal shonkar