Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors. - CWP-19658-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 3064 (11 May 2006)

CWP No.19658 of 2005 Page numbers

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

CWP No.19658 of 2005

Date of Decision: 18.5.2006

Sukhwinder Kaur



State of Punjab and others.


Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Patwalia

Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh and

Mr. Praduman Singh, Advocates for

Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Chahal, AAG, Punjab

for the respondents.


J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker on 18.10.2004, by the Child Development Project Officer, Dhuri, and she assumed her duties as such on 19.10.2004. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner is impugning the order dated 21.11.2005 (Annexure P-4), by which the letter of appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker, has been withdrawn, and she has, accordingly, been relieved of her duties.

The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the claim of the petitioner was reconsidered by the respondents on the CWP No.19658 of 2005 Page numbers

basis of an enquiry conducted by the Programme Officer, Sangrur, whereupon, it was concluded, that the petitioner had been wrongly evaluated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. On the re-assessment of the petitioner, she was not found meritorious enough to be appointed as Anganwari Worker.

On the issuance of notice of motion, the respondents have filed a detailed written statement. Alongwith the written statement, the respondents have appended an order dated 6.10.2005, issued by the District Programme Officer, Sangrur, to the Child Development Project Officer, Dhuri, which depicts the reasons, which had weighed with the respondents in setting aside the earlier selection and appointment of the petitioner.

Relevant extract of the aforesaid order pertaining to the petitioner, is being reproduced hereunder:-

"Name of Name of Name of Remarks regarding Block Village Worker appointment.

xx xx xx xx xx

Dhuri(4) Manna Sukhwinder Kaur The 3 marks given for w/o Pritam Singh experience in private

School are incorrect."

A perusal of the reasons recorded reveals, that the petitioner had been awarded 3 marks for experience in a private school, which was incorrect.

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that no distinction, whatsoever, had been made by the respondents in the instructions regulating appointment of Anganwari Workers for awarding marks for experience gained in governmental institutions or in private institutions In this behalf, reference has been made to the notification, pertaining to recruitment of Anganwari Workers and Helpers, CWP No.19658 of 2005 Page numbers

dated on 9.1.2004, appended to the written statement as Annexure R-1/T.

The Court's attention has been invited to paragraph 5 of the aforesaid notification, dealing with the marks to be awarded for experience.

Paragraph 5 of the notification dated 9.1.2004, is being reproduced hereunder:-

"5. Experience: At the time of recruitment if any experience as Anganwari worker or Balsevika is available then she will be given preference above all the other candidates subject to the condition that the worker fulfils the other conditions of education and residence prescribed for the appointment of Anganwari worker. In case, there are more than one trained Anganwari worker/Balsevika are available then the preference will be given to the candidate having maximum experience.

Likewise, the candidate possessing the experience for a period of minimum five years as Anganwari helpers will be given preference and in case of availability of experienced Anganwari worker/Balsevika and Helper, Anganwari worker/Balsevika will be given preference.

Distribution of Marks for experience: In addition to the academic merit, the additional marks as prescribed below for possessing the experience in the field of welfare of women and children shall also be given.

1. Additional marks for one year experience : 02

2. Additional marks for more than one year experience : 03

3. Additional marks for more than two years experience : 04" We have perused paragraph 5 of the notification dated 9.1.2004 CWP No.19658 of 2005 Page numbers

with the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondents, who has also not been able to point out, that the experience referred to in paragraph 5, has to be in a government institute/institution only. Thus viewed, we are satisfied, that the action of the respondents in taking into consideration the experience rendered by candidates, desirous of appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker, in a governmental institute/institution, is clearly misconceived. This view of ours, in sum and substance, has been accepted by the respondents themselves, as is apparent from a similar order passed in case of some other candidates, dated 20.9.2005 (Annexure R-6/T), wherein, while dealing with the appointment of one Jasvir Kaur wife of Karamjit Singh, as Anganwari Worker in village Bhularheri, the observations recorded by the authorities were to the following effect:- "Village Bhularheri: According to the decision taken by the constituted committee regarding the appointment of Jasbir Kaur wife of Karamjit Singh in village Bhularheri as a worker, it has been found that her teaching period in a private school is from April 1998 to 31.3.2000 and for this she has been given 3 marks which are incorrect, because the school is not recognised one.

Therefore, the appointment made should be cancelled and the new appointment may be made out of the earlier selection list on merit, it is so opined. The concerned has already submitted her resignation."

It is apparent from the observations recorded in the case of the aforestated Jasvir Kaur, that her teaching experience was not accepted merely on account of the fact, that the said teaching experience was in an institution, which was not recognised. In so far as, the teaching experience of the CWP No.19658 of 2005 Page numbers

petitioner is concerned, it is not a matter of dispute, that the same is from a school, which has been duly approved by the State government, as is apparent from Annexure R-7, appended to the written statement.

In view of the above, we are satisfied, that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of 3 marks as were originally awarded to him, in terms of paragraph 5 of the notification dated 9.1.2004, for the experience rendered by her, and that, the respondents were wholly unjustified in arriving at the conclusion, that the said experience could not be taken into consideration.

For the reasons recorded above, the instant writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 21.11.2005 (Annexure P-4) is set aside.

( J.S. Khehar )


( P.S. Patwalia )





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.