CWP NO.12816 OF 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 19.1.2009 Santosh Rani ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Gaurav Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1, 3 & 5 Mr.A.K.Sarma, Advocate for respondent no.6 Ms.Rupinder Kaur, Advocate for respondent no.7 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 2.7.2007 (Annexure P- 8) whereby the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled and a direction has been issued to re-fix the merit again and consequently, vide letter dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner has been informed that her selection has been cancelled as Anganwari Worker and her services were terminated. Briefly stated the facts on record are that on the basis of the scheme formulated by the State of Punjab for appointment of Anganwari Workers, CWP NO.12816 OF 2007 2 applications were invited for appointment of Anganwari Workers in Village Onjhawali. The petitioner and respondent no.6 both applied. The Gram Panchayat, after adopting the resolution forwarded the applications to the Child Development Project Officer, Fazilka-respondent no.5. The said Officer, on consideration of the recommendation, appointed the petitioner vide letter dated 8.5.2007 (Annexure P-5) as Anganwari Worker in Village Onjhawali. This appointment was upto 28.2.2008. It appears that respondent no.6 made a complaint in respect of the appointment of the petitioner and on consideration of the said complaint, the appointment of the petitioner was recalled vide order dated 2.7.2007 (Annexure P-8) and thereafter services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P-9). In the impugned order, it is mentioned that both the candidates have equal mark i.e. 13 each and respondent no.6 being elder in age has been appointed. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no.6 on the ground that she has better merit than respondent no.6. It is stated that the petitioner has better percentage in the matriculation examination. According to the petitioner, she secured 51.41% marks in matric whereas respondent no.6 secured 49.23% in matric. Both of them possess additional qualification of 10+2. Another contention of the petitioner is that there is no condition in the Scheme that a person elder in age is to be preferred. On being put to notice, respondents no.1 to 5 have filed detailed reply. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was appointed initially, but a complaint was received from respondent no.6. The said complaint was enquired into by respondent no.5 who submitted his enquiry report and on receipt and consideration of the enquiry report, the appointment of the petitioner was recalled being contrary to the rules/norms. CWP NO.12816 OF 2007 3 It is also the case of the respondents that petitioner and respondent no.6 both secured equal marks in the selection and respondent no.6 being elder in age has been preferred over and above the petitioner. The details of the merit position of the petitioner and respondent no.6 have been given vide Annexure R-1/T. From the perusal of the merit list (Annexure R-1/T), it appears that the petitioner has secured slightly more marks than respondent no.6, but under the Scheme both the petitioner and respondent no.6 are entitled to 10 marks each. Similarly, they have secured same marks for 10+2 qualification and total marks secured by both the candidates are 13 each. Under the Scheme, in the event both the candidates have equal marks, the candidate elder in age is to be preferred. Before passing order dated 2.7.2007 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner and respondent no.6 were heard. The merit has been re-drawn in accordance with the Scheme formulated by the respondents. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 19.1.2009 MFK NOTE: Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:NO