CWP No.6038 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.6038 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.04.2010 **** Charanjit Kaur . . . . 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. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Ms. Charu Tuli, learned Sr. DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2. (2). The petitioner is serving as an Anganwadi Worker in the Department of Social Welfare and Child Development, Punjab since the year 1984. Certain posts of Supervisors were advertised and the petitioner also applied for the same. The final selection was challenged before this Court in CWP No.1926 of 1997 (Usha Rani and others vs. State of Punjab and others). During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of one Sh. CWP No.6038 of 2010.doc - 2 – R.L. Kalsia, the then Director, Social Security and Women and Child Development Department, to go into the entire gamut of the controversy. The Committee submitted its report and in terms thereof, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.05.2005 directing the State Government to get the claims of the aggrieved persons examined through the aforesaid Committee after affording opportunity of personal hearing to all those who may be aggrieved. The aggrieved persons were granted liberty to file objections. (3). The petitioner claims to have filed her representation before the authorities on 13.07.2005 (Annexure P4). The short grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been communicated the fate of her representation/objections till date. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the nature of relief sought by her, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents No.1 & 2 to take cognizance of the aforesaid representation sent by the petitioner and communicate its fate to her within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. CWP No.6038 of 2010.doc - 3 – (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 05.04.2010 vishal shonkar