CWP No.1449 of 2008 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:27.3.2009 Sandeep Kaur ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERFMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Gopal Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.Arun Chandra,Advocate,for respondent No.7. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner has applied for the post of Anganwari Worker for the Anganwari Centre at village Gehley, District Mansa. Respondent No.6 was also one of the candidates. On completion of the process of selection, respondent No.6 has been appointed. The petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No.6 in the present petition and has also prayed for her own appointment, on the ground that the petitioner has better merit. It is also contended that the petitioner has two years experience of teaching as E.G.S. Volunteer in the Government Primary School, Village Gehley. It is, thus, argued that the petitioner should have been preferred over respondent No.6 for the post in question. CWP No.1449 of 2008 :2: The State-respondent has filed reply giving the details of the inter-se merit of the petitioner as also respondent No.6. It is contended that both the candidates had equal merit. From the Chart drawn in the reply, it appears that both the candidates have equal marks in Matriculation and also having the same division. They are entitled to equal marks. Petitioner and respondent No.6, both are graduates and have also given equal marks and the total marks of both the candidates come to 16. None of the candidates have been given the benefit of experience as Anganwari Workers. Experience claimed by the petitioner is of teaching experience whereas as per paragraph 5 of the scheme formulated by the State for Anganwari Workers, the experience required is that of Anganwari Workers/Bal Sewika and no other experience is valid. Since both the candidates have equal marks, under the scheme the candidate who is elder in age has to be given preference for appointment. It is also stated in the reply that the date of birth of the petitioner is 7.7.1981 whereas the date of birth of respondent No.6 is 4.6.1974. Hence, respondent No.6 being senior in age to the petitioner, was selected and appointed. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 27.03.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO