Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JASWINDER KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jaswinder Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors. - CWP-7960-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 7939 (28 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANIDGARH

C.W.P. No. 7960 of 2005

Date of Decision: 10.10.2006

Jaswinder Kaur

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others.

... Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand.

Present : Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate,

for respondent No.5.

J.S.Khehar, J. (Oral)

The petitioner Jaswinder Kaur has assailed the appointment of respondent No.5 Charanjit Kaur as Anganwari Worker. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the petitioner ought to have been awarded more marks than respondent No.5 in the criterion adopted by the respondents, and, as such, had a preferential right for appointment as Anganwari Worker over respondent no.5.

To test the aforesaid assertion at the hands of the petitioner, we have re-examined the claim of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 in terms of the criteria for awarding marks in order to determine merit, depicted CWP No. 7960 of 2006 2

in para 5 of the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3). The aforesaid criteria is being extracted hereunder:

"1. Martic Pass candidates 10 Marks

2. Addl. Marks for Matric 1st Division 02 Marks

3. Addl.Marks for Matric 2nd Division 01 Marks

4. Addl. Marks for 10+1 01

5. Addl. Marks for 10+2 02

6. Addl. Marks for B.A.Part-I 03

7. Addl. Marks for B.A.Part-2 04

8. Addl. Marks for B.A./Higher 05 Education."

Having perused the manner of assigning marks in determination of merit, we have arrived at the conclusion, that the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 ought to have been granted 14 marks in terms of the aforesaid criteria, although both of them have been awarded 13 marks in the process of selection. This conclusion of ours is affirmed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned counsel for respondent No.5.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, since both, the petitioner as well as respondent No.5, have been awarded the same number of marks, the next question to be determined is, who has a preferential right over the other for appointment against the post of Anganwari Worker. It is not disputed that respondent No.5 is a daughter-in-law of the village, whereas the petitioner is a daughter of the village, and, as such, respondent No.5 has a preferential right over the petitioner, in terms of clause 4 of the instructions for recruitment of Anganwari Workers and Helper, placed on the record of CWP No. 7960 of 2006 3

this file as Annexure P/5.

In view of the above, we are satisfied, that the respondents were fully justified for giving the preference to respondent No.5 over the petitioner for the post of Anganwari Worker.

Dismissed.

(J.S. Khehar)

Judge

October 10, 2006 (S.D. Anand)

vkd Judge


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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