Kulwinder Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

J.S. Khehar, J.—In a process of consideration for appointment against the post of Aganwari Worker for village Gadapur in Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, the official respondents have chosen respondentNo. 6 for appointment as such. The petitioner claims superiority for appointment viz. respondentNo. 6 and as such has impugned the process of selection and appointment of respondentNo. 6, Paramjit Kaur, by filing the instant writ petition.

The first contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had qualified the certificate course in Nursery Teaching Training Course and as such should be allowed additional marks for higher qualification, i.e., for having qualified the aforesaid certificate course. In so far as the instant prayer of learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is based on the following provisions contained in the policy instructions dated 9.1.2004 (Annexure P/1) which have been issued by the respondents for regulating appointment of Anganwari workers:

...Minimum educational qualification for the recruitment of Anganwari Workerwill be Matric or other equivalent examination. This examination must have been passed from any recognized University or Education Board. Preference will be given to a candidate who possesses higher educational qualification. In caseof equal merit, priority will be given to a candidate who is elder in age.

Distribution of marks on the basis of Educational Qualification:

Matric Pass Candidate 10 marks

Addl. Marks for passing Matric 02 in First Division.

Addl.marks for passing Matric in Second Division 01

Addl. Marks or passing 10+1 01

Addl.marks for passing 10+2 02

Addl. Marks for passing B.A. Part I 03

Addl.marks for passing B.A. Part 2 04

Addl marks for passing B.A. or higher educational qualification. 05

Having perused the relevant portion of the policy instructions extracted hereinabove, we are of the view that the certificate course as possessed by the petitioner cannot be termed as higher qualification, in view of Clauses 7 and 8 of the extracted portion of the policy instructions hereinabove, since the certificate course possessed by the petitioner cannot be termed as a qualification higher than the B.A. qualification stipulated therein.For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the first contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is declined.

The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is based on the instructions dated 31.5.2000 (Annexure P/8) issued by the State Government also pertaining to recruitment of Anganwari Works. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following portion of the aforesaid instructions, wherein distribution of marks on the basis of experience has been earmarked:

...Distribution of marks on the basis of experience:

Additional marks for experience relating to the women and child development for one year. 03 marks.

Additional marks for experience relating to the women and child development for two years. 03 marks.

Additional marks for experience relating to the women and child development for three years. 04 marks.

Additional marks for the candidates who have passed Diploma in Women and Child Development from recognised University. 03 marks

Express reliance has been placed on Clause 4 reproduced hereinabove. A perusal of the same reveals that three additional marks have been assigned to the candidates who have qualified "diploma course" in Women and Child Development from "recognised University". The course qualified by the petitioner is not a diploma course. Further more according to the learned Counsel for respondentsNo. 1 to 4, the certificate of Nursery Teaching Training Course acquired by the petitioner is not from a recognized University. Accordingly, we find no merit in the second contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Dismissed.