Full Judgment
Civil Writ Petition No.1508 of 2014 {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 28, 2014 Pinki ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.Balkar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the appointment of respondent No.5 dated 25.09.2010 as an Anganwari Worker.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possesses higher marks than respondent No.6-Sunita Rani.
Both of them have been granted equal marks on the basis of the qualifications, which is not sustainable.
His further contention is that respondent No.6 is the Panch of the village and, therefore, has been selected on that ground as she knew members of the selection committee and, thus, the favoritism in favour of the said respondent.
That apart, she is working as a Cashier in Sakshar Mahila Samiti, which would again be disqualification qua respondent No.6 to be considered and appointed on the post of Anganwari Worker.
Prayer has, thus, been made for setting-aside the appointment of respondent No.6.
On considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and on going through the records of the case, it is apparent that Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.29 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.1508 of 2014 {2} mere fact that respondent No.6 is a Panch of the village or is working as a Cashier in Sakshar Mahila Samiti would not disqualify her for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker.
The instructions, which govern the selection and appointment of the Anganwari WorkeRs.copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-4, do not indicate such an eventuality to be a ground for rendering a candidate ineligible for selection and appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker.
It is also not in dispute that as per the criteria laid down for granting marks as per the qualification has been duly followed by the selection committee and accordingly marks have been assigned to the petitioner as well as respondent No.6.
The distinction is that the petitioner has obtained 8 marks in the interview, whereas respondent No.6 has secured 9 marks.
Interview is based upon the performance of a candidate before the committee and, therefore, it is on the basis of such a situation that the marks are assigned by the interview committee.
Merely because one of the candidate has been granted higher marks than the other candidate cannot be a ground for setting-aside the selection on that basis.
Admittedly, petitioner and respondent No.6 got equal marks as per the criteria for qualifications is concerned.
Interview being dependent upon the performance of the candidate has resulted in higher marks for respondent No.6 which cannot be made the basis for setting-aside the appointment.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
January 28, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) ramesh JUDGE Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.29 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh