IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6468 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 07, 2009 Darshana Rani .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for with Mr. Annkur Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This 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 Order dated 23.2.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.3 i.e. District Programme Officer, District Ferozepur, whereby order of appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker has been withdrawn. Instead, Asha Rani daughter of Makhan Singh (respondent CWP No.6468 of 2008 [2] No.5) has been appointed as Anganwari Worker for village Badal Ke Hithar, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur. Without referring to details, perusal of Order Annexure P-6 indicates that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker in village Badal Ke Hithar. A complaint was received in regard to the appointment whereupon the matter was again considered. On comparison of comparative merit, it has been noticed in the impugned order, that the petitioner as also the private respondent got 14 marks in the context of the Scheme/ Criteria adopted by the official respondents for appointment of Anganwari Workers considering the qualification. On behalf of the petitioner, on the first count, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has passed B.A. and therefore, she ought to have been given 16 marks as against 14 marks awarded. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out from Annexure P-3 that the petitioner had a re-appear in English and therefore, on the date of consideration of claim for appointment as Anganwari Worker, the petitioner had not passed B.A. Part-I and therefore, no additional mark could be given for CWP No.6468 of 2008 [3] the said degree. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute this factual position and therefore, I find no infirmity in the action of the respondents in awarding 14 marks for qualification of the petitioner. On the other count i.e. giving preference to the private respondent over and above the claim of the petitioner considering the age of the private respondent, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Instructions on the issue under which it has been provided, “in case of equal merit, preference will be given to the candidate who is elder in age”. In the impugned order, the age of the petitioner and private respondent has been considered. The age of the private respondent is more, she having been born on 24.4.1984 as against the petitioner who was born on 20.4.1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case by way of referring to instructions that would allow more merit marks to the petitioner, considering the comparative facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances considered above, it becomes evident that in regard to the educational CWP No.6468 of 2008 [4] qualifications, the petitioner and private respondent were identically placed. Respondent No.5, however, being elder in age, has been given preference and accordingly has been ordered to be appointed. I have also taken note of the fact that the petitioner has been given due opportunity of hearing before passing of the order. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the decision taken by the respondents and the same does not call for judicial review. The petition is accordingly dismissed. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to claim for salary for the period the petitioner has served, is concerned, the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner for the period the petitioner has served. (AJAI LAMBA) September 07, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?