PARTISH RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the appointment of respondent no.6 as Anganwadi worker, petitioner has approached this court by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the appointment of respondent no.6. Petitioner has also challenged the validity of policy instructions dated 20.7.2009 issued by the respondent-State.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was the resident of the village, for which the post of Angawadi worker was to be filled, whereas respondent no.6 was not resident of that village. Petitioner was found more meritorious than respondent no.6, because petitioner was awarded 16 marks, whereas respondent no.6 was awarded 11 marks. However, still respondent no.6 was appointed as Anganwadi worker illegally, ignoring the better and preferential claim of the petitioner. He places strong reliance on the order dated 13.7.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this court in CWP No.14098 of 2005 (Navjinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others) Annexure P-1.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, did not address any arguments challenging the constitutional validity of the policy instructions dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure P-2). He submits that in view of para 3 of instructions (Annexure P-1) at page 76 of the paper book, respondent no.6, being widow, could have been preferred over and above the petitioner only if both the candidates would have equal merit. He prays for setting aside the appointment of respondent no.6 by allowing the present writ petition.