CWP No.17813 of 2007.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17813 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: 27.04.2010 **** Rupinder Kaur and another . . . . Petitioners 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. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No.17813 of 2007; 1217 of 2008 as common issues are involved in both the cases. In CWP No.17813 of 2007, the petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 01.11.2007 (Annexure P4 & P5) passed by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Bagha Purana, Moga, whereby, their services as Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper, respectively have been terminated. (2). The controversy pertains to appointment of the Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper in village Sekhan Kalan, Block Bagha Purana, District Moga. It CWP No.17813 of 2007.doc - 2 – appears that the Gram Panchayat of the village sent a list of candidates who were found eligible and also recommended the names for appointment. However, the CDPO Bagha Purana overlooked those recommendations and selected the petitioners for the respective posts. (3). Smt. Jagjeet Kaur, who is the petitioner in the connected case (CWP No.1217 of 2008), was also a candidate for the post of Anganwadi Helper. Since her name was not recommended by the CDPO, she made a complaint against the selection and appointment of Jaswinder Kaur, who is one of the writ-petitioner in first case (CWP No.17813 of 2007). (4). Pursuant to an enquiry held on the above-stated complaint, services of the petitioners (in CWP No.17813 of 2007) have been terminated vide the impugned order and Smt. Jagjeet Kaur – the complainant has been given appointment as the Anganwadi Worker. The operation of that order was, however, stayed by this Court on 26.11.2007, leading to the termination of services of Smt. Jagjeet Kaur on 06.12.2007 (Annexure P8). She has impugned that order in CWP No.1217 of 2008. (5). Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the records perused. CWP No.17813 of 2007.doc - 3 – (6). It appears that no complaint whatsoever was received against the first petitioner in CWP No.17813 of 2007 who was appointed as Anganwadi Worker. It is her pleaded case that the Gram Panchayat had also included her name in both the lists while recommending the names of suitable candidates. If that is so, there appears to be no rhyme or reason for terminating her services. (7). As regards the rival claims of the 2nd petitioner in CWP No.17813 of 2007 and the complainant (Jagjeet Kaur), learned State counsel contends and rightly so that when the Gram Panchayat had forwarded two lists recommending the names of eligible candidates, it was imperative upon the selecting authority to consider all of them. Since no such exercise was undertaken by the CDPO, no fault can be found with the impugned termination order (Annexure P8). However, in view of the fact that petitioner No.2 is continuing on the post of Anganwadi Helper under the ad interim orders passed by this Court, the appropriate recourse at this stage would be to direct the Director, Social Welfare – respondent No.2 to constitute a Selection Committee to be headed by an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Director/Assistant Director, who shall consider the suitability of all the candidates whose names were CWP No.17813 of 2007.doc - 4 – forwarded by the Gram Panchayat for the post of Anganwadi Helper. The said Committee shall determine the merit afresh and appointment to the post of Anganwadi Helper shall be made accordingly. (8). So far as appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker is concerned, it is directed that if there was no complaint against petitioner No.1 – Rupinder Kaur, she may be allowed to continue as such. However, the afore-stated exercise shall be undertaken in the case of Anganwadi Worker also if any complaint was ever made against selection of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 shall ensure that the entire exercise is completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (9). Ordered accordingly. (10). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 27.04.2010 vishal shonkar