CWP No.17196 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.17196 of 2007 Date of decision:October 16, 2008 Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab & others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. The prayer in the present writ petition is that selection of respondents No.6 and 7 as Anganwari Worker and Anganwari Helper respectively be quashed and to consider the names of the petitioners for the said post. The petitioners have contended inter alia that respondents No.6 & 7 had been selected despite the fact that their applications were not received by the Gram Panchayat nor their names were recommended for the said posts. A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 wherein it has been stated that Sarpanch of Village Halwara, Block Sudhar, District Ludhiana had recommended only the names of his favourites for the post of Anganwari Worker and Anganwari Helper. He did not accept the applications of widows, riot victims, destitute, CWP No.17196 of 2007 2 handicapped and unmarried girls of the village. Thus, the Child Development Project Officer rectified the irregularities by accepting the applications of all the bonafide residents. It has been further averred by the respondents that respondent No.6 had been rightly selected as she had been separated from her husband for last more than five years. An affidavit sworn by her husband, from whom she allegedly separated five years ago, has been placed on record as Annexure R-7/T. In the said affidavit it has been stated by husband of respondent No.6 that they had separated from each other only few days after marriage due to temperamental differences. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. After perusing the entire record, we are of the considered view that the entire selection deserves to be quashed. The respondents have not been able to show how the post of Anganwari Workers and Anganwari Helpers were advertised or how the same were publicized. The affidavit Annexure R7/T annexed with the reply as regards separation of respondent No.6 from her husband, also does not inspire any confidence. It is inexplicable why a strained husband would furnish an affidavit in favour of his wife from whom he had separated more than five years ago. The entire selection process on the face of record is vitiated. The writ petition is, thus, allowed and the selection of respondents No.6 and 7 as Anganwari Worker and Anganwari Helper respectively is quashed, with liberty to the official respondents to CWP No.17196 of 2007 3 re-advertise the post and fill up the same strictly in accordance with law and procedure governing appointment to the said post. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE October 16, 2008 'rajpal'