CWP No. 17184 of 2005. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17184 of 2005. [O&M] Date of Decision: 19th April, 2010. Smt. Ranjit Kaur Petitioner through Mr. Baljit Puri, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mrs. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S.Modi, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 and 7. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 18.12.2004 [Annexure P-10] whereby respondents No. 6 and 7 have been appointed as Anganwari Workers in village Kohrian by the Child Development and Project Officer, Sunam. [2]. The petitioner who possesses the academic qualification of 10+2 and also claims herself to be a Sports-person, who had represented the State of Punjab in Sub-Junior Championship held in the year 1995 and got third position, has challenged the selection and appointment of respondents No. 6 and 7 as Anganwari Workers mainly on the plea that in the year 2001, the petitioner had applied for the aforementioned post and pursuant to her selection, she was given appointment vide order dated 21.12.2001 [Annexure P-4]. CWP No. 17184 of 2005. ::-2-:: Meanwhile, the State Government issued instructions dated 9.1.2004 [Annexure P-5] containing a new policy decision for appointment of Anganwari Workers. Pursuant thereto, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and instead it was decided to appoint two Anganwari Workers in village Kohrian. As per the new policy, daughter-in-law and un-married daughters of a village got preference in appointment as Anganwari Workers in that village. [3] The petitioner's case is that in terms of the new policy, the Programme Officer, Women and Child Development, Sangrur, vide letter dated 20.8.2004 asked the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to make announcement through the loud-speaker of the Gurudwara Sahib and invite the applications from the willing and eligible candidates. The petitioner submitted her application on 23.08.2004 and it appears that respondents No. 6 and 7 also applied to the Gram Panchayat. [4]. It is alleged that respondent No. 5 – Sarpanch of the village got selected his own wife Mohinder Kaur on the strength of some forged and fabricated documents wherein her name was got descripted as Kuldeep Kaur. She joined the duties and used to sign as Kuldeep Kaur. The petitioner having come to know about the impersonation by the Sarpanch's wife, made a complaint to the authorities. No sooner respondent No. 5 came to know about the said complaint, he got submitted the resignation of his wife and thereafter has manipulated the selection of respondent No. 7 – Smt. Golo Kaur wife of Major Singh along with Kala Wati i.e., respondent No. 6, over-looking the alleged meritorious claim of the petitioner. The petitioner's further case is that the Women and Child CWP No. 17184 of 2005. ::-3-:: Development Officer had prepared a list of candidates in which the name of the petitioner was duly included but due to the political pressure exerted by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat – respondent No. 5 the list was changed and the name of respondent No. 7 was forwarded/included. [5]. The official respondents have filed their reply – affidavit taking a preliminary objection that “the petitioner had never applied for the post advertised and her name was not recommended by respondent No. 5”. The petitioner filed her rejoinder dated 16.4.2007 taking a categoric stand that she in fact had applied and her name figured in the list of the candidates prepared by the Child Development and Panchayat Officer, Sunam. The petitioner also produced a photo copy of the said list in order to show that her name was duly included amongst the candidates. [6]. There being two documents, one showing the petitioner as one of the candidate and the other, not including her name, this Court passed the following order on 16.4.2009:- “The Xerox copies of the vernacular of Annexures P-8 and P-9 have been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since there are two documents on record Annexure P-8 and P-9 regarding the same selection, allegedly signed by the same officer for the selection in question, it is appropriate to find out the truth. The Child Development and Project Officer, Sunam District Sangrur, who is signatory to the Annexures P-8 and P-9 shall appear in person on the next date of hearing. Ms. Tuli shall cause her appearance”. Thereafter, this Court passed the following order:- CWP No. 17184 of 2005. ::-4-:: “Vide order dated 16.4.2009, the Child Development and Project Officer, Sunam, District Sangrur who is signatory to the Annexures P-8 and P-9 was directed to appear in person. Today Ms. Anita wife of Ravi Kapoor, r/o H. No. 252, Housing Board Colony, Nabha Gate, Sangrur, CDPO, Lehra Gaga, District Sangrur has appeared in person. She was shown the Xerox copy of Annexures P-8 and P-9 and according to her statement, the signatures on both the Annexures appear to be of this Officer. Ms. Charu Tuli, learned counsel for the State is directed to produce the original documents of Annexures P-8 and P- 9. Let an affidavit be also filed by the concerned Officer in whose custody this record is available”. [7]. Vide subsequent order dated 14.5.2009, the disputed documents [Annexures P-8 and P-9] were referred to the Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Central Forensic Institute Complex, Plot No. 2, Dakshin Marg, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh for examination and opinion as to whether the signatures on the original document accompanying the letter dated 1.12.2004 and the signatures on the Xerox copies of Annexures P-8 and P-9 are by the same officer. The order dated 14.05.2009 reads as under:- “Application for placing on record reply by way of affidavit along with Annexures has been presented in Court on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. Registry is directed to register and number the said application. Application is allowed. Accompanying affidavit of Ms. Anita, CDPO, Lehra Gaga, District Sangrur along with annexures are taken on record. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 5.5.2009, the original record has been produced. The original letter No. 795 dated 01.12.2004 along with the select list has been CWP No. 17184 of 2005. ::-5-:: retained and the same is taken into custody by the Court Secretary. It shall be put in sealed cover. Registry shall forward the original documents as also the Annexures P- 8 and P-9 to the Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, Central Forensic Institute Complex, Plot No. 2, Dakshin Marg, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh for examination and opinion as to whether signatures on the original document accompanying the letter dated 1.12.2004 and the signatures on the Xerox copies of Annexures P-8 and P-9 are by the same officer. He will also report whether the original document and the Xerox copies of Annexures P-8 and P-9 are in the handwriting of the same persons. Let the report be sent by the concerned expert within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received”. [8]. In compliance, the Laboratory of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Chandigarh, has sent its report along with the supporting reasons. The report reads as follows:- “Documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined. The opinion on photocopies reproduced is based on the presumption that they represent the originals correctly. 2. The writings in the enclosed portions stamped and marked P-8 and A1 to A3 have been written by one and the same person. 3. The person who wrote the enclosed writings stamped and marked P-8 and A1 to A3 did not write the enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked P-9. 4. The signatures in the enclosed portions stamped and marked P-8/1 and P-9/1 are photocopied reproduced and limited in nature and extent in writing characteristics. Therefore, being limited in nature and extent as well as CWP No. 17184 of 2005. ::-6-:: photocopied reproduction, the parameters of examination and comparison of Questioned signatures marked P-8/1 and P-9/1 can not be justifiably studied, assessed and evaluated when compared with the original signatures marked A4 to A6. As such it has not been possible to express any opinion regarding the authorship of the signatures marked A-8/1 and P-9/1 in comparison with the signatures marked A4 to A6”. [9]. The Laboratory of the Government Examiner of Question Documents is an organization manned by a team of Scientists, who are the subject experts having sufficient experience to their credit. The method of evaluation as is discernible from the reasons culled out in the report, is purely scientific and the conclusions drawn by them are logical. The Expert's report inspires confidence and deserves to be accepted. No further inquiry as suggested by learned counsel for the respondents is, thus, required, especially in view of the nature of order which I propose to pass hereinafter. It is, thus, concluded that the document [Annexure P-8] which contains the name of the petitioner as one of the candidates for the subject posts, is duly signed by the Child Development and Project Officer, Sunam and is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner had also applied for the posts in question. The preliminary objection taken by the official respondents that the petitioner never applied and was not a candidate for the subject post, can not sustain and is rejected. [10]. Adverting to the petitioner's claim on merits, suffice it to say that the official respondents have no where stated that she was considered on merits and/or found unsuitable or was lower in merit as compared to respondents No. 6 and 7. It may be noticed here that CWP No. 17184 of 2005. ::-7-:: as per the Government policy the candidates possessing higher academic qualifications, a widow or divorcee etc. have preferential claim for appointment as Anganwari Worker. It appears that the petitioner possesses better academic qualification than respondents No. 6 and 7. The manner of inviting applications followed by the Gram Panchayat was far from satisfactory and it is quite possible that like the petitioner, other eligible candidates of the village have also been denied opportunity to compete for the posts in dispute. [11]. The denial of right to consideration to the petitioner, in any event is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. [12]. Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment order dated 18.12.2004 [Annexure P-10] is hereby quashed with the following directions:- [i] the Director, Department of Social Security, Woman and Child Development shall ensure that the posts of Anganwari Workers are properly advertised in the village through more than one modes. The Gram Panchayat alone shall not be given the responsibility of advertising the posts. The petitioner as well as respondents No. 6 and 7 shall be at liberty to re-apply in response to the fresh advertisement; [ii] The Programme Officer, Woman and Child Development, Sangrur shall ensure that all the eligible candidates including those who have acquired eligibility after 2004 are given opportunity to compete for both the posts; [iii] owing to the allegations and counter-allegations made CWP No. 17184 of 2005. ::-8-:: against the Sarpanch and the Child Development and Project Officer, Sunam, the Director – respondent No. 2 is directed to constitute a Selection Committee to be headed by an Officer not below the rank of Programme Officer, who shall then interview and recommend the names of candidates strictly as per the Government policy. The selection process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received; [iv] keeping in view the larger public interest, respondents No. 6 and 7 shall be permitted to continue as Anganwari Workers till fresh selection is made. However, they shall not be granted any weightage or benefit of 'experience' gained by them while working as Anganwari Workers through illegal appointment. As soon as the fresh selections are made, respondents No. 6 and 7, if they are not amongst the selected candidates, shall make room for the newly selected candidates. [13]. Disposed of. Dasti. April 19, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE