Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SUSHILA KUMARI versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Sushila Kumari v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-16124-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8130 (9 October 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

CWP No. 16124 of 2006

Date of Decision: October 12, 2006

Smt. Sushila Kumari

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

The petitioner is aggrieved by the declaration that she has been declared ineligible for appointment as Anganwari Worker as is evident from the perusal of list of selected candidates, dated 19.6.2006 (P-4). She has made representation on 17.8.2006 (P-5) followed by reminder dated 5.9.2006 (P-6). It is claimed that orally she has been told the reason for her ineligibility, namely, that she does not have subject of Mathematics in her Matriculation Examination, which according to the learned counsel is wholly irrelevant for determining her eligibility. For the aforementioned purpose, representations have already been filed as noticed above.

CWP No. 16124 of 2006

In view of the above and without commenting upon the merit of the controversy raised, we direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider and decide the representations made by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before them. In case respondent No. 3 is not competent authority to decide the representation then the same be forwarded to the authority competent to take a decision thereof. A detailed speaking order shall be passed disclosing the reasons for declaring the petitioner as ineligible, in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

October 12, 2006 JUDGE

Pkapoor


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.