CWP No.15195 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15195 of 2008 Date of Decision: 03.03.2010 **** Radha Kumari . . . . 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. Ishwar Lal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondent-State ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a mandamus for her appointment to the post of Anganwadi Supervisor from the date her junior, namely, respondent No.3 has been appointed. (2). The petitioner joined the respondent-Department as an Anganwadi Worker on 26.08.1983. In response to the advertisement issued in the year 1996, the petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Supervisor. The petitioner’s grievance is that respondent No.3, who is lower in merit, has been appointed but she was ignored. (3). Learned counsel submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has also been appointed CWP No.15195 of 2008.doc - 2 – as a Supervisor in June, 2009. He, however, asserts that the petitioner is entitled to such appointment with retrospective effect from the date when candidates lower in merit were appointed. (4). There appears to be some substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. (5). The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s claim for appointment from the due date and if found entitled to, the appointment of the petitioner shall also be antedated with all consequential service benefits. The needful shall be done preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 03.03.2010 vishal shonkar