C.W.P No. 9836 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 9836 of 2008 Date of decision : February 19, 2009 Smt. Babita Devi, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. J.P.Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as Aganwari Worker on 25.9.2007. Lateron, her appointment was cancelled on the grounds that there was already a Backward Class Aganwari Worker in the village; the selection of the petitioner was marred by favouritism; and that the quota of Backward Class category was complete at block level. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was selected on merit and, thus, even if she belonged to Backward Class by having competed against general category candidates and having been selected on merits, it would have to be C.W.P No. 9836 of 2008 ::2:: said that she consumed the post of general category and not the post of Backward Class. In the alternative, counsel for the petitioner has argued that in case the selection of the petitioner was cancelled on account of some irregularities in the process, then her services could not have been dispensed with without at-least giving her opportunity to meet the said allegation. In reply, it has been urged that the post of Aganwari Worker is an honorarium post and, thus, the concept of a reserved category candidate coming up in merit to be selected over and above general category candidate and, thus, to occupy a general category post would not be applicable. In my opinion, this is a fallacious argument. In any situation, where a reserved category candidate appears for selection and is selected over and above a general category candidate on merit, it has to be held that such reserved category candidate would occupy a general category seat. A reference in this regard is made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs Satya Prakash and others, 2006(3) RSJ 598. As regards the second argument also no meaningful defence has been set up by the respondents. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 1.2.2008 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as Aganwari Worker. It is, however, clarified that she would not be entitled for any back wages for the period she remained out of job. Needful shall be done within one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 19, 2009. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 9836 of 2008 ::3::