LPA No.1782 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1782 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.02.2011 Kamlesh Kaur … Appellant Versus State of Punjab and Ors. … Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 06.07.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant-petitioner did not perform up to the mark before the Selection Committee whereas the performance of respondent No.6 in interview was found to be up to mark. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the selection made by the respondents No.3 and 4 holding that the Courts are not to act as an Appellate Authority over the view taken by the Selection Committee. 2. Mr. Saurabh Garg, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has argued on the basis of guidelines for the selection/interview of Anganwari workers dated 23.11.1995 (P-1) that academic qualification of candidates shall be taken as a basic consideration. According to the learned counsel, the appellant-petitioner like respondent No.6 is matriculate but she has better grade LPA No.1782 of 2010 (O&M) -2- being second class whereas respondent No.6 has secured third class. Therefore, according to the guideline No.1, the appellant-petitioner should preferred over respondent No.6. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner mentions that rejection of appellant-petitioner in preference to respondent No.6 is arbitrary and the view taken by the learned Single Judge is thus liable to be reversed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that the guidelines/instructions dated 23.11.1995 do not go to the extent of saying that the academic qualification should alone be the basis. Firstly, the academic qualification of both the candidate is matriculate. Secondly, it is accompanied by other two guidelines namely that the women belonging to weaker section of the Society/widows/destitute women/ handicapped women are to be given preference and experience/trained Anganwari workers are to be preferred over others. Once both the appellant- petitioner and respondent No.6 are matriculate then, their performance during interview would only be the deciding factor. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the performance of appellant-petitioner was not up to the mark and has accordingly declined relief to her by observing that the Courts are not the Appellate forum and a substitute for the Selection Committee after interview. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372. 4. In view of above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed being devoid of merit. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE LPA No.1782 of 2010 (O&M) -3- FEBRUARY 16, 2011 ( T.P.S. MANN) rajan JUDGE