IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5437 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 26, 2010. Harbans Kaur .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Mohit Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner impugns the selection of respondent No.4 on the post of Anganwari worker in village Mour, on the plea that the recommendations made by the Gram Panchayat of that village vide its resolution dated 4.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) did not include the name of respondent No.4. It is also alleged that as per the Government Instructions, the authorities could not have appointed a candidate whose name is not recommended by the Gram Panchayat. However, over-looking the Government Instructions or the Gram Panchayat resolution that respondent No.4 has been appointed. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the considered view that the factual issues raised by the petitioner are required C.W.P.No .5437 of 2010 2 to be ascertained by the authorities. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Director, Social Security, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Punjab, who shall call for the records and thereafter, take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. March 26, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE