CWP No.12059 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12059 of 2008 Date of decision : 26-5-2009 Geeta Rani ....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) The petitioner and respondent No.4 both applied for selection / appointment as Aanganwari worker pursuant to the advertisement vide letter dated 28-08-2007. The case of the eligible candidates was to be recommended by respondent No.3. It is alleged by the petitioner that all necessary documents were submitted along with the application. 12 such documents were attached. However, respondent No.3 recommended the case of respondent No.4 to respondent No.2 for selection / appointment. The petitioner is post- graduate whereas the respondent No.4 is only a matriculate. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has much higher merit than the private respondent. However, the case of the petitioner is not CWP No.12059 of 2008 -2- recommended by manipulating the marks as also the residence of the respondent No.4. It is alleged that the respondent No.4 is the sister-in-law of brother of respondent No.3 and is given undue benefit. The entire manipulation was made on the basis of the recommendation of respondent No.3. She was appointed as Anganwari worker vide order dated 1-9-2007. The petitioner has also lodged the FIR No.159 dated 2-5-2008 u/s 420/465/467/471 IPC at Police Station, Faridkot against the respondents No.3 and 4. It is further stated that respondents were admitted to bail and are facing trial for tampering the documents etc. Since respondent No.4 has been appointed, the petitioner filed this petition challenging the appointment and also seeking appointment for herself. In the reply filed by the State, the only plea raised is that the case of the petitioner was not recommended by respondent No.3 whereas respondent No.4 was recommended for the selection / appointment. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, the said respondent stands appointed. It is, however, admitted that the respondents No.3 and 4 are facing criminal trial. Even though the matter regarding the tampering of the documents, is under trial in a Criminal Court, however, the fact remains that the enquiry is required to be conducted regarding the inter se merit of the petitioner and respondent No.4. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot to hold an enquiry regarding the inter se merit of the petitioner and the respondent No.4. Deputy Commissioner shall issue notice to both the CWP No.12059 of 2008 -3- candidates and after affording an opportunity of hearing, pass a fresh order recommending the case either of the candidates to respondent No.2 for selection / appointment. Let the entire exercise of holding enquiry be conducted within a period of four months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the Deputy Commissioner. On receipt of the recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.2 will pass consequential order appointing any of recommendees. (PERMOD KOHLI) 26-05-2009 JUDGE manju