Judgment:
CWP No.12715 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH224 CWP No.12715 of 2013 Date of Decision : July 01, 2014 Kulwinder Kaur ...PETITIONER versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr.Tekwinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
(ORAL) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No.7 on the ground that Smt.
Seeta Devi w/o Sh.
Charan Dass, who is mother-in-law of respondent No.7, was a member of Sashakt Mahilla Samooh of the village and a member of the selection committee and participated in the interview process which resulted in selection of respondent No.7, which is not in accordance with law.
Prerna datta 2014.07.03 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.12715 of 2013 2 This assertion of the petitioner has been specifically denied by the respondents in the reply, which has been filed.
In para- 3 of the preliminary submissions, it has been stated as follows:- “3.
That it is absolutely wrong that Smt.
Sita Devi, respondent No.8, who is mother-in-law of respondent No.7, was member of the Selection Committee or otherwise participated in interview process.
It is pertinent to mention here that village Dabkauri falls in Ward No.20 of Municipal Corporation Panchkula.
Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that mother-in-law of respondent No.7 Smt.
Sita Devi participated in the interview process and had influenced the selection committee for the appointment of respondent No.7, is absolutely baseless and false.”
.
In the light of the above specific stand of the respondents, the assertion of the petitioner, as made in the writ petition, is found to be incorrect.
No material has been placed on record to substantiate the assertion, as has been made by the petitioner in her writ petition nor any replication filed by the petitioner denying the averments made by the respondents in their reply.
In view of the above, there being no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) July 01, 2014 JUDGE pj Prerna datta 2014.07.03 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh