CWP No.12413 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.12413 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: October 21, 2008 RAJNI BALA ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA. PRESENT: MR. HARJOT SINGH BEDI, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. B.S. CHAHAL, DAG, PUNJAB. MR. A.D.S. GHUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14.5.2007 (Annexure P-8) vide which respondent No.6 has been selected and appointed as Aanganwadi worker. It is the case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 2.3.2007 (Annexure P-2), the Block Development Project Officer, Dinanagar requisitioned applications for the post of Aanganwadi worker from the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, village Tugail. It has been further submitted that the Sarpanch (respondent No.2) without conducting any campaign or munadi and appointed respondent No.6 as Aanganwadi worker of village Tugail. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.6 as the petitioner has done her Graduation whereas respondent No.6 is only 10+2. Learned counsel for the petitioner CWP No.12413 of 2007 -2- has further contended that respondent No.6 is not even the resident of village Tugail and as per the Instructions (Annexure P-1), preference should be given daughter or daughter-in-law of the village where the post of Aanganwadi worker exists. Learned counsel further submits that the appointment letter dated 14.5.2007 (Annexure P-8), issued by the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti to respondent No.6 is illegal, as said power vests with the CDPO of the Block after recommendation of the Gram Panchayat and the Panchayat Samiti. Separate replies have been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 & 6, wherein the averments raised by the petitioner are vehemently denied and it has been submitted that a total number of 6 persons, including respondent No.6, applied for the post of Aanganwadi worker in village Tugail and no other application was received by the Gram Panchayat. Out of them respondent No.6 Manjit Kaur secured the highest 13 marks and was therefore, selected and appointed as Aanganwadi worker. It has further been averred that Gram Panchayat Tugail consists of two villages, namely, Tugail and Ghesal and as such respondent No.6 is the daughter-in-law of village Tugail. It has further been averred that as the petitioner had not applied for the post of Aanganwadi worker, therefore, the question of being more meritorious than respondent No.6 and having secured 27 marks in merit does not arise and it is the petitioner's own negligence of which she is suffering. It has been further averred that the impugned order dated 14.5.2007 (Annexure -8), was issued by the CDPO who is the competent authority and as such there is no illegality in the same. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that as respondent CWP No.12413 of 2007 -3- No.6 was the daughter-in-law of the village, hence she was appointed as Aanganwadi worker of village Tugail. It is pertinent to mention here that that the Gram Panchayat, Tugail consists of two villages, namely, Tugail and Ghesal and therefore, respondent No.6 has rightly been appointed. Apart from the above, a perusal of the reply shows that the petitioner never applied for selection as Aanganwadi worker of the village and therefore, the question of her having secured 27 marks does not arise. The name of the petitioner was also not incorporated in the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, Ghesal and therefore, the petitioner has no right to be appointed to the post of Aaganwadi worker. In view of the aforementioned facts, we find no ground to quash the selection of respondent No.6 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE October 21, 2008 (RAJAN GUPTA) Gulati JUDGE