CWP No.16960 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 10.2.2009 Paramjit Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Charanjit Sharma, Advocate for petitioner Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab Mr.S.S.Godara, Advocate for Mr.Shivraj Angi, Advocate for respondent no.5 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no.5 for the post of Aganwari Worker of Block Fazilka vide order dated 29.9.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no.4. It is stated that the petitioner was engaged as Aganwari Helper in February, 2002 at Jhoke Dippulana by the Child Development Officer, Fazilka. The post of Aganwari Worker was advertised through Munadi in the village by Chawkidar. Both the petitioner and respondent no.5 were the applicants. The names of the eligible candidates were recommended by the Panchayat by adopting the resolutions. As many as eight candidates have been recommended, CWP No.16960 of 2007 2 including the petitioner and respondent no.5. The competent authority appointed respondent no.5 for the post of Aganwari Worker vide appointment letter (Annexure P-2). The grievance of the petitioner is that she was required to be preferred for the appointment on the basis of the guidelines/Scheme for appointment of Aganwari Workers. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the guidelines/Scheme placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R-5 issued by the Director, Social Security and Woman and Child Development, Punjab, Chandigarh. One of the guidelines relied upon by the petitioner relates to experience. On the left hand at page 50 of the paper-book, the guideline, inter-alia, provides that the experienced Anganwari Worker/Balsewika, if available, would be preferred, subject to fulfilling all other conditions of required academic qualifications and regarding residence etc. It further reads that the candidate having experience of 5 years as Aganwari Helper shall be preferred, and in case of availability of experienced Aganwari Worker/Bal Sewika and Helper of both categories, Aganwari Worker/Bal Sewika shall be preferred. However, the aforesaid Rules have been amended. The amended Rule is on the right side at page 50 of the paper-book. According to amended guidelines, after fulfilling 25% quota of Anganwari Helpers as narrated in Sr.No.5 at the time of appointment of Aganwari Workers, experienced Aganwari Worker/Bal Sewika (if available) shall be preferred among all the candidates subject to fulfilling all conditions of required academic qualifications and regarding residence and in case of availability of more than one trained Angwanri/Bal Sewika then the most experienced candidate shall be preferred. Another significant amendment is at Sr.No.5 at page 56 of the paper-book, where under 25% posts of Anganwari Workers are kept CWP No.16960 of 2007 3 reserved for Anganwari Helpers having experience of 10 years as Anganwri Helper, subject to fulfilling all the conditions of eligibility. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was not having any experience as Anganwari Helper at the time of appointment and was thus not entitled to be preferred for appointment as Anganwari Worker. Furthermore, respondent no.5 who is Graduate, has secured higher merit than the petitioner. The marks allocated to each of the candidates are detailed in merit list (Annexure R-6/T). Respondent no.5 has secured 18 marks whereas the petitioner has secured 13 marks. On the basis of the merit, respondent no.5 has been selected and appointed. This position has not been controverted in any manner. In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least direction be issued for payment of the salary to the petitioner for the period she has worked as Anganwari Worker. There seems substance in the prayer of the petitioner. The respondents-State shall release the salary of the petitioner for the period she has actually worked as Anganwari Worker, if not already paid. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 10.2.2009 MFK CWP No.16960 of 2007 4