CWP No.6122 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.6122 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.04.2010 **** Daljinder 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. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner, whose appointment as Anganwadi Worker of Village Talwandi Khuman, Tehsil Majitha, District Amritsar was quashed by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2009 (Annexure P6) passed in CWP No.13466 of 2007, is now aggrieved at re- determination of her merit vis-à-vis respondent No.5 who was the writ-petitioner in the above- mentioned case. (2). It may be mentioned here that after re- determination of the merit, respondent No.5 has been given appointment on the subject post. (3). The short grievance of the petitioner is that neither the criteria/mode of re-determination of the inter- CWP No.6122 of 2010.doc - 2 – se-merit of the candidates was disclosed nor her merit position in the revised selection list has been informed to her despite a registered notice dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P8) served on her behalf. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of relief sought by her, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to inform the petitioner as to how the inter-se-merit of the candidates has been determined in terms whereof respondent No.5 has been placed above the petitioner in the selection list. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 05.04.2010 vishal shonkar