C.W.P No. 14095 of 1998 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 14095 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision : July 06, 2010 Kamlesh Kaur, ...... Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Mandeep Kumar, Advocate for R.K.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6. *** 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 has challenged the speaking order dated 21.8.1998 (Annexure P-9), which was passed on the directions of this Court in CWP No.18931 of 1997. The State of Punjab had advertised various posts of Anganwari Workers, in response to which the petitioner and respondent No.6 appeared. Respondent No.6 was selected. The petitioner filed CWP No.1620 of 1997. C.W.P No. 14095 of 1998 (O&M) ::2:: The said writ petition was disposed of on 3.2.1997 with the following order:- “ This petition has been filed for quashing the appointment of respondent No.5 as Anganwari Worker on the ground that she is less meritorious and is not qualified for appointment as Anganwari Worker. It appears from the record that the petitioner made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, on 31.12.1996, but that representation has not been decided so far. We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Petition by directing respondents No.2 and 6 to consider the writ petition of the petitioner as her representation and take a decision thereon after calling for the record of selection from the respondent No.4. We expect that appropriate decision will be taken by the competent authority as early as possible but in any case it should be done within a period of two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order together with a copy of the Writ Petition.” Pursuant to the above direction, respondent No.5 recommended the cancellation of the appointment of respondent No.6. That order was challenged by respondent No.6 by way of CWP No.11927 of 1997. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the said order since no notice had been issued to respondent No.6 and directed a fresh decision of the matter. On a fresh decision, again the petitioner was held entitled to be appointed. That order was again challenged by respondent No.6 by way of C.W.P No. 14095 of 1998 (O&M) ::3:: CWP No.18931 of 1997. The said writ petition was allowed on July 14, 1998 in the following terms :- “ xx xx xx Since we have found the respondent No.6 passed the impugned order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner has made serious allegations of bias and mala fides against the said respondent, we deem it appropriate to direct that fresh hearing be given to the petitioner and the respondent No.5 by the Secretary, Department of Social Security and Women and Child Development, Punjab, Chandigarh. We hope that the learned Secretary will decide the matter afresh by a detailed speaking order at the earliest and in any case within a period of two months from today.” Thereafter, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order (Annexure P-9) upholding the selection of respondent No.6 and dis-entitling the petitioner. A perusal of the brief resume of the facts reveals that this matter relating to the appointment of Anganwari Worker has been considered by three Division Benches of this Court, and by three officers right from the Deputy Commissioner to the Director, Social Welfare and the Secretary, Department of Social Security and Women and Child Development Punjab (respondent No.1). Respondent No.1 has held that even though the petitioner is academically better placed than respondent No.6 yet many similar appointments were made by the same selection committee after ignoring the academic merit on the basis of overall assessment and performance at the time of interview. The main ground of C.W.P No. 14095 of 1998 (O&M) ::4:: the petitioner is also that her academic merit is superior to that of respondent No.6, as also the fact that she has some additional qualifications. Specific reliance has been placed on the guidelines (Annexure P-1), wherein it has been mentioned that academic qualification shall be taken as basic consideration. In the written statement, the official respondents have reproduced the remarks of the selection committee. With regard to the petitioner, the following remarks are recorded :- “ Her husband is employed in CRPF. Her performance is not upto mark.” In regard to respondent No.6, the following remarks are recorded :- “ She is SC. Her husband is in Army. Her performance in interview is upto mark. Hence selected.” In my opinion, the remarks of the selection committee, as well as the order (Annexure P-9) cannot be said to be ex-facie arbitrary. It must be remembered that this Court is exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is not sitting as a super selection committee or as an appellate authority over the order (Annexure P- 9). Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main writ petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 06, 2010. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 14095 of 1998 (O&M) ::5::