SUMAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) 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.