Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana & Others vs Anita Rani on 30 July, 2018
Bench: Krishna Murari, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.957 of 2018 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 30.07.2018
State of Haryana and others
.....Appellants
versus
Anita Rani
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE
Present: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana
for the appellant
..
KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):
This intra-Court appeal has been filed by State of Haryana under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and order dated 12.12.2017 passed by learned single Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner (respondent herein) challenging the advertisement dated 14.01.2015 inviting applications for filling up posts of Anganwari Worker and Helper in different blocks of district Yamuna Nagar.
2. The learned single Judge, after considering the matter, denied the relief of quashing of advertisement but disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:
"Hence, while having to reject the prayer for quashing the advertisement Annexure P-3, for the reason that the said plea is not available to the petitioner in this 2nd petition filed by her, however, with the petitioner being even today stated to be only 50 years of age, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners' application for the post in question in the Mini Anganwari Centre, shall not be rejected on the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 19:14:44 ::: LPA-957-2018 - 2 -
ground of her being over age, with a similar relaxation to be given to her as has been given to those Coordinators appointed as Anganwari workers who were earlier working in Bachpanshalas, (upon their absorption in Anganwari Centres)."
It is only against this part of the order, the State has approached this Court by filing the instant LPA.
3. On being pointedly asked by us, learned Additional Advocate General has been unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the nature which may require us to interfere in this intra-Court appeal. Besides, there is delay of 34 days in filing and 73 days in re-filing the appeal which has also not been properly explained.
4. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands dismissed.
(KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 30.07.2018 parkash NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 19:14:45 :::