KRISHNA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the selection as well as appointment of respondents No. 4 and 5 to the post of Anganwari Worker on the ground that the petitioner being more meritorious has not been considered and no marks for experience have been awarded while preparing the merit of the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 who are lower in merit have been selected and appointed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as have been mentioned in the petition are that the respondent-department had decided to fill up one post of Anganwari Worker in Village Ghillour, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar. Notice was given by way of munadi through Sarpanch of the village. The petitioner applied on 14.8.2010 and enclosed all her documents as well as experience certificate. As per policy dated 12.6.2008, the post of Anganwari Worker was to be filled up from the candidates who are resident of the same village and are in the age group of 18-44 years. As per criteria, 60 marks were meant for 10th class, 15 marks for higher qualification and 7 marks for experience. The petitioner along with other candidates was called for interview, which was held on 18.10.2010 and secured 59 marks, whereas, respondent No.4 secured 60 marks. Since respondent No.4 got one mark more than respondent No.4, and was selected and appointed as Anganwari Worker. Aggrieved by the Selection of respondent No.4, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 28.2.2011 before the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar challenging the irregularities and also the fact that the petitioner was to secure higher marks than respondent No.4 as per policy dated 12.6.2008. Initially the appeal was submitted to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, who returned the same on 26.5.2011 by stating that he was not the competent authority. The appeal, therefore, was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, who sought comments but the department delayed the matter on one pretext or the other.

(3.) Thereafter, another post of Anganwari Worker was notified by the respondent-Department in the village in November, 2011. The petitioner again applied for the said post by enclosing all the required documents but again respondent No.5 was selected and appointed by the respondent-department by ignoring the petitioner.