Sarbjit Kaur vs State of Punjab and others

The instant writ petition is directed against the order

dated 15.112016 (Annexure P-9), vide which, private respondent

No.5 (Kuljit Kaur) has been appointed as Anganwari Worker at

Village Kadrabad, Block Majitha, District Amritsar.

Counsel would submit that initially advertisement was

issued on 06.02.2013 by the District Programme Officer, Amritsar,

inviting applications from women candidates for filling up various

vacant posts of Anganwari Workers including Village Kadrabad,

Block Majitha, District Amritsar. Apparently, ten applications were

received for the post of Anganwari Workers for Village Kadrabad.

Present petitioner had also submitted her application and

subjected herself to a process of selection. A merit list was issued

in which one Sandeep Kaur was shown to have secured 16 marks

whereas, the petitioner secured 14 marks. Resultantly, Sandeep

Kaur was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Village Kadrabad,

Block Majitha on 05.01.2016. Sandeep Kaur having worked on the

post for 5/6 months, chose to resign. Counsel submits that the

resultant vacancy of Anganwari Worker has been filled up by way

of issuance of the impugned appointment letter dated 15.11.2016

(Annexure P-9) in favour of Kuljit Kaur (private respondent No.5

herein).

The precise argument raised by counsel is that the merit

drawn up in the year 2016 in pursuance to the advertisement dated

06.02.2013 was not correct and in which, private respondent No.5

herein was shown to have secured 15 marks and the petitioner at a

inferior merit position i.e. 14 marks.

In the considered view of this Court, the submission

advanced by counsel is not well founded.

The merit determined in pursuance to the selection

process initiated in the light of advertisement dated 06.02.2013

would not be of any consequence as of date. It is being so

observed for the reason that such recruitment process culminated

in the appointment of one Sandeep Kaur on 05.01.2016 and who

after having joined the post has chosen to leave service of her own

accord.

Private respondent No.5 herein has not secured

appointment as Anganwari Worker on the basis of the merit

drawn out in pursuance to advertisement dated 06.02.2013.

Counsel concedes that respondent No.5 was already

working as an Anganwari Helper at the same very centre,

Village Kadrabad, Block Majitha, District Amritsar and she had

submitted an application for being adjusted/appointed as

Anganwari Worker on the strength of amended instructions dated

09.11.2016, issued by the Directorate, Women and Child

Development Department, Punjab. The application had been

submitted by respondent No.5, upon Sandeep Kaur, who was

appointed in January 2016 having resigned from the post of

Anganwari Worker.

The amended instructions dated 09.11.2016 have been

placed on record and appended as Annexure P-8 along with the

writ petition. Extract of the instructions and which would be

relevant for the controversy at hand is as under:-

"Note(a) It is made clear that in the eventuality of receipt of the application of the Anganwari Helper working in any Anganwari Helper working in any Anganwari Centre of the State, in any Anganwari Centre/Mini Anganwari Centre of some Urban Area against the vacant post of worker for recruitment, her recruitment could be made as Anganwari work in such centre provided she is resident of the same city for which the recruitment is to be made for Anganwari Centre. If any such Anganwari Centre falls within the limits of Municipal Corporation then it will be necessary that the candidate should be resident of the same ward or according to existing wardbandi, she should be the resident of the ward just to be adjoining ward in which the recruitment is to be made for Anganwari Centre."

Counsel does not dispute that the claim of private

respondent No.5 to seek appointment as Anganwari Worker, while

working as Anganwari Helper in the same centre i.e. Village

Kadrabad, Block Majitha, District Amritsar, is covered under the

afore-extracted note of the amended instructions dated 09.11.2016,

issued by the respondent-authorities.

Under such circumstances, this Court has not find any

infirmity with the appointment of the private respondent No.5 on

the post of Anganwari Worker in the light of appointment order

dated 15.11.2016 (Annexure P-9).

For the reasons recorded above, there is not merit in the

instant petition.

Dismissed.