IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 10833 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.1.2010. Reena Devi --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondents no.1 & 2. Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for respondent no.3. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent no.3 for the post of Aanganwari Worker for village Chanderon, District Karnal. One post of Aanganwari Worker was advertised in the village. As many as seven candidates applied for the said post. It is alleged that the candidature of four candidates was rejected for want of domicile certificate and three eligible candidates were considered. It is further stated that respondent no.3 was given 62 marks, petitioner 59 marks and one Sudesh Devi was given 49 marks. Respondent no.3 was the President of Saakshar Mahila Samuh and in that capacity was an expert member in the interview committee. Respondent no.3 being a member of the interview committee herself became a candidate and was selected. The petitioner made a representation against the appointment of respondent no.3. Having failed to seek any response the present petition has been filed. The main prayer in the petition is a writ in the nature of Mandamus to respondent no.2 to decide the CWP. No. 10833 of 2009 (O&M) -2- representation of the petitioner and give her appointment as per selection list (Annexure P-1). Reply has been filed on behalf of official as also the private respondents. With the reply filed by respondents no.1 and 2, copy of a communication dated 23.6.2009 has been filed as Annexure R-1/T. From the aforesaid communication it appears that the Director, Woman & Child Development Department, Haryana has cancelled the entire selection being vitiated. It is mentioned that respondent no.3 Krishna Devi, who herself was a candidate and also a member of the selection committee has been selected in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further stated that out of seven candidates marks have been awarded to three candidates. On that count the entire selection has been set aside. So far the reply filed by respondent no.3 is concerned the main contention is that the State has formed an Appellate Form in respect to the disputes of selection of Aanganwari Workers and thus the petitioner has an alternative remedy. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the selection of respondent no.3 is totally illegal and unwarranted. The State has cancelled the entire selection. Petitioner is seeking her appointment on the ground that she is in the waiting list. In order to support the contention the petitioner has placed reliance upon selection list (Annexure P-1) which is said to be a list prepared by the selection committee in which it is mentioned that four candidates did not produce the domicile certificate. The State, however, in its wisdom considered the matter and cancelled the entire selection. The order of cancellation is not under challenge in the present petition. CWP. No. 10833 of 2009 (O&M) -3- In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is, however, directed that the respondents will hold a fresh selection within a period of two months from today. The petitioner is at liberty to apply for her consideration in accordance with law. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 21.1.2010. lucky