CWP No.3514 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3514 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.02.2010 **** Kanwaljeet 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. J.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner impugns the order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure P5), whereby, her appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker of Village Samalsar, District Moga has been cancelled and respondent No.4 has been appointed in her place. (2). The impugned order is founded upon an enquiry report dated 04.01.2010 (Annexure P6) which clearly reveals that respondent No.4, who is unfortunately a widow had produced certified copies of her academic certificates as the originals CWP No.3514 of 2010.doc - 2 – were sent to Jammu University to get admission in ETT. The certified copies, however, were not accepted by the CDPO. The 4th respondent, thereafter, applied and got issued duplicate certificates and submitted the same in the office of CDPO on 11.11.2009. Still respondent No.4, who had a preferential claim, was not considered and the petitioner, who is daughter-in-law of the village, was given appointment. There was one more objection against respondent No.4 that she is not the resident of the village but that has also been repelled by producing the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission on 13.12.2008 establishing her (respondent No.4) to be the resident of the village in question. (3). In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.01.2010 warrants no interference as the appointment of respondent No.4 is fair, just, legal and as per Government policy. (4). Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner points that before her appointment as Anganwadi Worker, the petitioner was working as Anganwadi Helper in the same village since 2007. The said post is stated to be lying vacant even now. CWP No.3514 of 2010.doc - 3 – (5). In view of the fact that the petitioner has now been asked to vacate the post of Anganwadi Worker, there appears to be no legal impediment in her continuation to the original post of Anganwadi Helper, if so permissible under the Policy. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the desirability of the petitioner’s continuation as Anganwadi Helper and pass an appropriate order to this effect. It is made clear that till an appropriate decision is taken, the petitioner shall be allowed to work as Anganwadi Helper and the said post shall not be filled up by appointing someone else. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.02.2010 vishal shonkar