-1- Civil Revision No.382 of 2011 (O & M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 20, 2011. Civil Revision No.382 of 2011 (O & M). Kailash Rani ... Petitioner VERSUS Director, Women & Children Development Department, Chandigarh, and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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. Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by both the Courts below whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit filed by her for mandatory injunction and declaration concerning her appointment as Aganwari Worker in Village Diwan Khera, -2- Civil Revision No.382 of 2011 (O & M). Tehsil Dabwali, was dismissed. One post of Aganwari Worker was lying vacant in Village Diwan Khera against the S.C quota. The plaintiff- petitioner also applied for the said post. Interviews for the said post were held on 26.11.2008. As per letter dated 12.6.2008, a married lady i.e daughter-in-law living in the village was entitled to 8 marks at the time of interview. Admittedly, Village Diwan Khera is the parental village of the plaintiff- petitioner. After her marriage with Rajesh Kumar resident of Amritsar, she had shifted to her matrimonial home. Although, she might have later on shifted to her parental village to settle there along with her family, but she cannot be said to be daughter-in-law of Village Diwan Khera. Therefore, she was not awarded 8 marks at the time of her interview because these marks were to be awarded to the daughter-in-law of Village Diwan Khera. It was on account of this fact that both the Courts below did not find a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff- petitioner. Under the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, I do not see any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. This revision is, accordingly, hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 20, 2011. JUDGE ak