CWP No. 21233 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21233 of 2010 Date of Decision 29.11.2010 Sulochna Devi -----Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition challenges the stipulation in advertisement which grants relaxation in age for direct recruitment to those who are to be appointed as Anganwari Workers. According to Clause 5 of the advertisement as reproduced in para 3 of the writ petition, the parameters of age are 18 to 44 years but age relaxation has been provided for those widows or their dependent candidates who are to be appointed as Anganwari workers to the extent of 50 years. No other category like Anganwari helper has been eligible for age relaxation. 2. The petitioner is seeking appointment to the post of Anganwari Helper and she is already working as Anganwari Worker. CWP No. 21233 of 2010 -2- According to the averments made in para 5 of the writ petition, she was born on 07.03.1966 and on the last date of submitting application i.e. 11.11.2010, she has attained the age of more than 44 years. The grievance made is that once relaxation has been given in age limit for Anganwari Worker, it should also be given to candidates applying for the posts of Anganwari Helper. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the idea of relaxation is the matter of policy for the State and it will not ipso facto grant the benefit of every category. Apart from the fact it is based on expert opinion and it is a policy matter of the State. A number of other factors are taken into consideration in providing the relaxation of age of a particular category of employee. We find nothing wrong in granting of relaxation of age in respect of one category and not granting the same to the other. In any case, relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is well settled. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE November 29, 2010 Atul