CWP No.15110 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.15110 of 2007 Date of decision: 28.8.2008 Amarjit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S. Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Onkar Singh Batalavi, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Rajan Gupta, J. This petition has been preferred praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Anganwari Worker on the ground that the petitioner is having higher merit than respondent No.4. A writ of mandamus has also been sought to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganwari Worker with all consequential benefits, she being higher in merit than respondent No.4. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that she passed matriculation examination obtaining 579 marks out of 1200 and her certificate in this regard is Annexure P-1. Thereafter, the petitioner also passed Senior Secondary Examination and B.A. from CWP No.15110 of 2007 2 Guru Nanak Dev University. The Panchayat of Village Ladha Munda, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur received seven applications for appointment as Anganwari Worker and the same were sent to respondent No.3. Thereafter, the said post of Anganwari Worker was filled by giving appointment to one Rajwant Kaur. However, the appointment was challenged by respondent No.4 in CWP No.14098 of 2005. The said writ petition was allowed and appointment of Rajwant Kaur was quashed and the respondents were directed to issue offer of appointment to respondent No.4. The said writ petition was allowed on the ground that respondent No.4 was having 13 marks while Rajwant Kaur was having 11 marks. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has contended that she was having 16 marks and thus she has a prior right over respondent No.4 Navjinder Kaur who was having 13 marks. Thus, she has prayed that she being higher in merit, deserved to be appointed and appointment of respondent No.4 was liable to be quashed. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 wherein it has been contended that petitioner is a married lady and is residing in her in-law's village. As such, she is no more a resident of village Ladha Munda where the Anganwari Worker had to be appointed. The respondents have further averred in their reply that as per instructions issued by the Government, a daughter of the village can be appointed as Anganwari Worker provided she is resident of that village. However, the petitioner was no longer a resident of village Ladha CWP No.15110 of 2007 3 Munda as after her marriage she had become a daughter-in-law of village Pandoh. Thus, her name was neither recommended by Gram Panchayat nor she was considered for selection by respondent No.3. Despite her higher merit, she could not be considered, being no longer a resident of village Ladha Munda. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is obvious from a perusal of Annexure R1/T that Gram Panchayat while recommending the names for appointment as Anganwari Worker had clearly observed against the name of the petitioner that she was no longer a resident of the village (Ladha Munda). Thus, according to the instructions, the petitioner was neither considered nor recommended for being appointed as Anganwari Worker, she having been married away to village Pandoh. Thus, we find no infirmity with the order appointing respondent No.4 as Anganwari Worker. The writ petition is, thus, devoid of any merit. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE August 28, 2008 'rajpal'