SHASHI BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that as per the instructions governing the appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker, the applicant should be resident of the same village/ward for which the appointment has to be made. Counsel contends that Respondent No. 5 belongs to different ward i.e. Ward No. 23 whereas the post of Anganwari Worker was to be filled for Ward No. 22. It is further contended that the petitioner is much more qualified than respondent No. 5 and therefore, as per the criteria laid down, would have been entitled to selection.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that representation dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) has been made by the petitioner to the District Program Officer, Palwal, District Palwal-Respondent No. 3 but till date no decision thereon has been taken or conveyed to the petitioner.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner at this stage would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the District Program Officer, Palwal, District Palwal-Respondent No. 3, who is the Additional District Commissioner, District Palwal, to consider and decide the representation dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) within some specified time. Without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon, this petition is disposed of with direction to the District Program Officer, Palwal, District Palwal-Respondent No. 3 to consider the representation dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) and decide the same within a period of two months. Decision so taken thereon be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith.