Civil Writ Petition No.8098 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: August 04, 2009 Krishna Kumari Mehra .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.D.R.Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Applications were invited to fill up one post of Anganwari Worker in village Jeetgarh, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat. The petitioner being eligible applied for the said post. Respondent No.5, however, was appointed. The petitioner would allege that respondent No.5 has got this appointment by misrepresenting herself to be the wife of Joginder, resident of village Jeetgarh. It is also stated that she is only middle class pass, whereas petitioner is a matriculate. It is Civil Writ Petition No.8098 of 2008 : 2 : accordingly claimed that petitioner is more meritorious and as such deserves to be appointed in place of respondent No.5. While replying to the averment made in the writ petition that respondent No.5 has wrongly shown herself to be wife of Joginder by procuring the certificate of some Krishna, it is stated that the enquiry had been initiated and appropriate action shall follow. While noticing this stand of the respondent, the case was adjourned to await the outcome of the enquiry. When despite 2-3 opportunities, the result of enquiry was not intimated, respondent No.4 was directed to appear in person and was also saddled with cost of Rs.5,000/-, to be paid from her pocket. Today, the cost has been paid in the court which is accepted by the counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rathee, on instructions, points out that Smt.Krishna, respondent No.5 wife of Joginder and Sheela, who is stated to be wife as per some of the documents produced, are in fact one and the same person. The submission on these lines was then not pursued any further by the counsel. He, however, would point that matric qualification of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration while awarding marks on a specious plea that she had qualified in the matric without mathematics as a subject. The document (Annexure R-2) relied upon by the respondent in support of this stand, as per the counsel for the petitioner, would show that the matric certificate produced by the petitioner could not have been ignored. Annexure R-2 shows that for valid matriculation one has to pass an examination with Hindi as a compulsory subject and further at least to pass in four remaining subjects like, English, Civil Writ Petition No.8098 of 2008 : 3 : Mathematic, Social Science, Science and optional subjects. Reading of this would clearly show that one has to pass four subjects of English, Mathematic, Social Science and Science for being properly qualified to be a matric pass. Petitioner has not passed the mathematic exam in matric. On this basis, he was not awarded any mark for being a matriculate. This approach adopted by the respondents does not appear to be infirm in any manner. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. August 04, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE