(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Anganbari worker and also her appointment letter dated 2.5.2006 (P-1). A further direction has been sought to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint her as Anganbari Worker.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Child Development Project Officer, Assandh, District Karnal, issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Anganbari worker. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 had also applied for the aforementioned post by the last date of submitting the applications. On 26.4.2006, interviews were conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee and on 2.5.2006, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Anganbari worker. It is appropriate to mention that detailed procedure for holding selection of Anganbari worker has been provided by letter dated 13.3.2006 (P-2). The aforementioned instructions have been issued by the Director, Women & Child Development Department, Haryana (respondent No. 2) to all the Child Development Project Officers in the State of Haryana. The allocation of marks have been stipulated in the instructions dated 13.3.2006, which have been adopted and followed in the selection process in the instant case.
(3.) The petitioner, who is a widow and has remained unsuccessful in the selection process espouses her grievance by submitting that in the interview she has been awarded only three marks whereas respondent No. 4 has been awarded 4 marks out of 10 marks. According to the submission, the allocation of 10 marks for interview leaves determinative discretion in the hands of the Selection Committee to invert the relevant consideration arbitrarily. Mr. J.K. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has substantiated his argument by placing reliance on two Single Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Sham Lal v. Union of India, 1994 4 SCT 163 and Vikas v. State of Punjab, 2002 2 RCR(Cri) 12.