JASVIR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is apparent from the record that the grievance of the petitioner, vis-a-vis the appointment of respondent No. 6 to the post of Anganwari Worker, is based on the fact that she was more meritorious and the latter (respondent No. 6) had been wrongly appointed. The plea is contested by the respondents who have joined issue by filing independent written statements. One joint written statement was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 4; while yet another was filed by respondent No. 2. As noticed in order dated 11.5.2006, respondent No. 6 adopted the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 4. The plea put forward on behalf of the respondents is that though both the candidates (i.e. the petitioner and respondent No. 6) were equal in terms of merit, preference in the matter of appointment was given to respondent No. 6 as she was older in her age.

(2.) IT is beyond the pale of controversy that, as between the two equally meritorious candidates, the one older in age would be entitled to preference.

(3.) THE following proposition of law requiring consideration emerges from the pleadings of the parties and also the points canvassed before us. Respondent No. 6 did not indeed have any experience as Anganwari Worker. As against it, the petitioner did have experience as Anganwari Worker, for the period 10.12.2001 to 18.9.2002 and 17.10.2002 to 13.10.2003 on the authority of an earlier appointment which came to be invalidated at a later point of time. The challenge preferred by the petitioner and those similarly circumstanced like her to their termination was declined by this court.