Punjab-Haryana High Court
Seema Rani vs Director Women & Child Development ... on 13 March, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P No.2530 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P No.2530 of 2012
Date of Decision : 13.03.2012
Seema Rani ...PETITIONER
Vs.
Director Women & Child Development Department and others
... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Sumeet Sheokand Advocate,
for Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the selection and appointment of respondent No.3 as an Anganwari Worker. The ground taken by the petitioner for assailing the appointment of respondent No.3 is that she is much more meritorious as far as her education qualification is concerned. It has been contended that respondent No.3 had secured maximum marks i.e. 9½ out of 10 in the interview whereas none has been granted the same marks.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case.
The distinction on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming that respondent No.3 has been appointed is that she has been granted maximum possible marks in the interview whereas none has been granted that much marks. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted firstly, for the reason that the performance in an interview depends upon the person, who appears before the Interview Board which is assessed on the basis of the responses received by the Committee. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 has been granted the maximum marks i.e. 9½ out of
10. There are other candidates also who secured 8, 8½ and 9 marks as C.W.P No.2530 of 2012 -2- well. That apart selection is not merely based upon the interview marks only but is dependent upon the educational qualification as well when taken together the merit list is prepared and on the basis of such merit list, person with highest merit is appointed. No undue benefit has been given to respondent No.3 in the selection process. The grounds, therefore, pressed into service for assailing the selection of respondent No.3 are not clearly made out which would show that respondent No.3 was appointed for any mala fide reasons or by giving undue benefit.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
13.03.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE