MAMTA Vs. DIRECTOR, SOCIAL SECURITY AND DEVELOPMENT FOR WOMEN & CHILDREN DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially engaged as Anganwari Worker vide letter dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure P-4) till 29.2.2004 from the date of joining, on payment of honorarium. She joined on 21.5.2007. While the petitioner was performing the duties as Anganwari Worker, she received a letter dated 5.6.2007 (Annexure P-6) whereby selection of the petitioner was stayed on the basis of some complaint. It is stated that the copy of the complaint was never made available to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, approached the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar seeking withdrawal of the letter dated 5.6.2007. The Deputy Commissioner referred the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala. The SDM, Ajnala submitted his report dated 31.7.2007 (Annexure P-7). It is stated in the report that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the claim of respondent No. 4-Paramjit Kaur, the complainant in the case was ignored. It is further reported that under the policy, the daughter-in-law of the village, particularly, a widow has to be given the preference. Respondent No. 4 being a widow and daughter-in-law was to be given preference and thus, she has legitimate claim for appointment as against the petitioner. Consequent upon the aforesaid report, the Child Development Project Officer Chugawan cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and appointed respondent No. 4 as Anganwari worker vide order dated 13.8.2007 (Annexure P-8). It is this order which is in question in the present writ petition.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed their written statement defending their action on the ground that under the Scheme for appointment of Anganwari Worker, respondent No. 4 has preferential claim for appointment and thus, on consideration of the complaint, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled and respondent No. 4 has been appointed; being eligible, qualified widow and daughter-in-law of the village.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.