KUSUM CHAHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER and respondent No. 5 were candidates for the post of Anganwari Worker in Village Bhukhri, District Ambala. Petitioner remained unsuccessful and respondent No. 5 was selected and appointed against the abovesaid post. Petitioner came to this Court challenging appointment of respondent No. 5 on the ground that she was less meritorious and even as per criteria adopted by the respondents, the petitioner was entitled to get higher percentage of marks, as compared to respondent No. 5. In response to the notice issued by this Court, written statement has been filed. Paragraph 8 of the written statement reads thus:

(2.) READING of written statement clearly indicates that the official respondents have virtually admitted case of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to get higher marks, as compared to respondent No. 5 and be appointed against the post advertised in the year 2006. Merely because after filing of this writ petition the respondent No. 5 has resigned and the post has now been reserved for scheduled caste category and re -advertised, is no ground to decline the rightful claim of the petitioner. If the marks had rightly been given, at the time when the interview took place for the post in question, as per criteria adopted by the respondents, petitioner was bound to be selected against the post of Anganwari worker. It is not in dispute before this Court that her right was wrongly snatched away from her by committing deliberate mistake or otherwise by the respondents.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner very fairly states that if benefit of service is given to her, from the date when respondent No. 5 was taken in service wrongly, the petitioner will not claim any financial benefits. We order accordingly.