Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 205 (PNJ)

Suman Devi v. State of Haryana

2014-01-24

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2014
Augustine George Masih, J. Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6-Smt. Raj Kumari wife of Kapil on the post of Anganwadi Worker. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of respondent No. 6 is not in consonance with the instructions dated 12.06.2008 (Annexure P-1) regarding Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. Referring to the said instructions, it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that after the interview is held, the result has to be immediately forwarded within a period of 24 hours. He, therefore, contends that the instructions having not been complied with and the result having been sent later than the period prescribed, the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 is not in consonance with the law. 2. The second contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that one mark was given to respondent No. 6 in the interview, which has subsequently been increased to seven by overwriting. Had these marks not been increased, respondent No. 6 could not have been selected. 3. His further contention qua selection of respondent No. 6 is that she was working in the Crech of Village Sehlang and had joined the post of Anganwadi Worker without resigning from the said post and, therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 6 is not sustainable. 4. Qua respondent No. 7, it has been asserted that the said respondent does not possess the matriculation certificate and has wrongly been granted the marks for the said matriculation qualification. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. 6. Facts of the case indicate that petitioner had earlier also filed a writ petition, i.e., CWP No. 19106 of 2011, which was disposed of with directions to the respondents to decide the representation/appeal of the petitioner. In compliance with the said order, the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana has, after dismissal of the appeal, proceeded to consider, in detail, all these submissions made by the counsel herein and on the basis of the records, rejected the said representation. It has been stated in the order dated 18.05.2012 that the delay in submission of the selection record was because the Child Development Project Officer was on holidays for 14.02.2009 and 15.02.2009. It has been stated in the order dated 18.05.2012 that the delay in submission of the selection record was because the Child Development Project Officer was on holidays for 14.02.2009 and 15.02.2009. From 16.02.2009 to 18.02.2009, there was a meeting of the Gram Sabha and the Child Development Project Officer, Clerk and Assistant all were present in the Villages as per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul. The Supervisor was on leave from 16.02.2009 to 17.02.2009 and after her leave, the Supervisor submitted the selection file on 19.02.2009 in the office of the Child Development Project Officer, whereafter the file was forwarded to the office of the Project Officer, Narnaul on 20.02.2009. These are justifiable grounds for delay, which has occurred in submission of the records, which has been gone into by the Director as well as the Secretary of the Department. 7. As regards the tampering with the interview marks of respondent No. 6 is concerned that she was awarded one mark which was thereafter increased with the help of a blade and was made seven, the competent authorities have perused the original record and have come to a conclusion that the said allegation is without any justification and is not borne out from the records. 8. Assertion that respondent No. 6 was working in the Crech of the Village and prior to her submission of resignation had joined as an Anganwadi Worker, it has been stated that the appointment of an Anganwadi Worker is on honorarium basis and it is not a Government post held by the Anganwadi Worker. That apart, it has been stated that the records have been perused and it was found that before joining the post of Anganwadi Worker on 03.03.2009, Smt. Raj Kumari did not work at the Crech nor she received any salary as has been clarified by the Headmaster of the Crech. All these grounds, on which the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 has been challenged, have been duly considered by the competent authorities at two levels on the basis of the records and then rejected the claim of the petitioner. I am in full agreement with the same. 9. As regards the challenge to the selection and appointment of respondent No. 7 is concerned, the only assertion against her is that she does not possess the matriculation certificate. I am in full agreement with the same. 9. As regards the challenge to the selection and appointment of respondent No. 7 is concerned, the only assertion against her is that she does not possess the matriculation certificate. On perusal of the records, both the authorities below have found that the qualification of respondent No. 7, i.e., Smt. Santosh Yadav by mistake has been mentioned as 8th pass, whereas she is matriculate and the certificate has been issued by the Rajasthan Secondary Education, Board in this regard. 10. In view of this, the challenge to the selection of respondent No. 7, who has been kept in the waiting list, also cannot survive. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.