IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11622 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 17, 2010 Nirmala Devi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Vijay Lath and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocates, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Orders Annexure P-11 dated 20.6.2008 and Annexure P-12, also dated 20.6.2008. 2. Perusal of Order dated 20.6.2008 CWP No.11622 of 2008 [2] (Annexure P-11) shows that the order has been issued by Directorate of Women & Child Development Department, Punjab, concluding that Gram Panchayat, Kalyanpur, has neglected the claim of Manjit Kaur widow of Pardeep Kumar including other eligible candidates. Under such circumstances, the orders appointing the petitioner as Anganwari Worker have been withdrawn and process of appointment of Anganwari Worker has been directed to be conducted afresh in accordance with instructions issued by the Department. 3. Vide Order Annexure P-12 (also dated 20.6.2008), the Child Development & Project Officer, Anandpur Sahib (Ropar), has informed the petitioner that against her appointment as Anganwari Worker, a complaint had been made by Manjit Kaur widow of Pardeep Kumar declaring the appointment as illegal. It further narrates that Head Office had already given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 11.6.2008. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker in Centre Village Kalyanpur has been withdrawn/ rescinded w.e.f. 20.6.2008 and whatever stock and record was lying in the Anganwari Centre, was ordered to be handed over to the Circle Supervisor. CWP No.11622 of 2008 [3] 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after following due procedure laid down by the respondents and after proper Munadi, the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker for the village. On the second count, it has been contended that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing and therefore, the orders passed are illegal and cannot be sustained in law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has pointed out that detailed enquiry was conducted in deference to directions passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2874 of 2008 titled ‘Manjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & others’. In the enquiry, it has been found that no effective Munadi was conducted and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was not in conformity with law. The best talent in the village could not be invited and there might be other person more deserving to be appointed as Anganwari Worker. 6. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through documents towards which my attention has been drawn. 7. Report extracted from Annexure P-11 in relation to the issue raised in the petition reads as under:- CWP No.11622 of 2008 [4] “....... After perusal of the relevant entire record and affording personal hearing to both the parties, it has been found that it is not proved that Gram Panchayat has effected any Munadi for the appointment of Anganwari Worker/Helper as a result of which eligible candidates could not get the opportunity. It is clearly established from the fact of non-joining the investigation by Sarpanch and from the statements of petitioner and existing Anganwari worker that the proceedings in respect of appointment for the post of Anganwari worker/helper were recorded in the general meeting but no open announcement was made about this fact nor from the record, it is proved that any quorum was complete. From this only one conclusion is derived that the stipulated norms were not complied with for the appointment of Anganwari worker/helper and serious lapses were adopted.” 8. Annexure P-5 is a Certificate issued by Chowkidar of village Kalyanpur, purportedly in evidence of the fact that proper Munadi inviting applications for the post of Anganwari Worker was conducted. Certificate reads as under:- “Certified that I Joginder Singh, Chowkidar Village Kalyanpur made Munadi/ Announcement on 20-03-2007 in the village and told the people about tomorrow’s meeting of Panchayat in village Kalyanpur, so all are requested to attend the said meeting. It is not related to me that whosoever attends the meeting.” 9. On facts, having considered the issue, I find that as per certificate, Annexure P-5, issued by the Chowkidar, as extracted above, Munadi purportedly was made on 20.3.2007. The certificate only narrates that a meeting of Panchayat in Village Kalyanpur is scheduled for next day viz. 21.3.2007. It does not indicate that applications were invited for making appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. CWP No.11622 of 2008 [5] 10. It is the conceded case that meeting was held on 21.3.2007 wherein the only application (of the petitioner) for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker was considered and recommended for appointment. 11. In my considered opinion, the notice/ Munadi was not in context of relevant contents required for publication of notice. It was not made known to the villagers that applications have been invited for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. It was only made known that the Panchayat meeting is scheduled for next day i.e. 21.3.2007 and therefore, the contents of Munadi/ public notice having not been made known to the villagers, it can safely be concluded that no ‘Munadi’ was in relevant context was made. 12. I am also of the opinion that sufficient time for inviting applications was not given. It is the conceded position that ‘Munadi’, if any, was made on 20.3.2007 inviting applications for the next day i.e. 21.3.2007. Thus, sufficient/ reasonable time having been not been given, the proceedings for appointment of Anganwari Worker cannot be held to be legal and above board. 13. In regard to second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that CWP No.11622 of 2008 [6] petitioner was not heard, perusal of enquiry report, Annexure P-11, itself makes it evident that the petitioner gave her statement in regard to her defence stating that she had applied for the post of Anganwari Worker to the Sarpanch of the village and her application was recommended by the Sarpanch. She could not give any justification in regard to the fact that proper Munadi was conducted or not. 14. Be that as it may, contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner have been taken note of by this Court in extraordinary writ jurisdiction and it has been concluded that no proper Munadi was held. Even before passing of Order, Annexure P-12, a notice was given to the petitioner as is evident from Order Annexure P-12, conveying to the petitioner that her appointment was found to be illegal and therefore, the same was rescinded/ withdrawn. 15. It has also been vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that Manjit Kaur did not apply at any point in time and therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities to have entertained her complaint. 16. Since it has been found as a matter of fact that no proper Munadi was held, obviously other residents of the village had no occasion to know that applications had been invited for CWP No.11622 of 2008 [7] appointment of Anganwari Worker. In such circumstances, the plea on behalf of the petitioner is found to be without any relevant basis and is, therefore, rejected. 17. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. 18. It is however made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to compete for selection as Anganwari Worker in the fresh selection process that is to be undertaken by the respondents. 19. In view of the delay already caused, the respondents are directed to initiate the process of selection within a period of one month of receipt of certified copy of this order. The process/ procedure of selection shall be over-seen/ supervised by the Child Development & Project Officer (CDPO) of the area. (AJAI LAMBA) November 17, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?