Dismissed

Geeta Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Apr 2013CWP/7855/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the selection of another candidate to an Anganwari Helper post, claiming she was first on the waiting list. The court dismissed the petition, holding that after participating in a fresh selection process following the cancellation of the initial appointment, the petitioner could not revert to the earlier waiting list.

What the court decided

AI extract

Geeta Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 7855 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 7855 of 2013 Date of decision: 11.04.2013

Geeta Devi

.... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana & others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral).

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length.

¶14

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the selection and appointment of respondent No. 8 to the post of Anganwari Helper at Village Garhpur Tapu, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. Further prayer raised in the present writ petition is for appointing the petitioner to the post in question.

¶15

Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the respondent-department had issued an advertisement in December, 2011 for the post of Anganwari Helper in Village Garhpur Tapu. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 7 had applied for the post. In such process of selection, respondent No. 7 was appointed on the post in December, 2011 itself, whereas the petitioner was kept in the waiting list at Sr. No. 1. Towards such assertion, learned counsel has adverted to Annexure P-1. It so transpires that the appointment of respondent No. 7 was thereafter cancelled by the department. As per contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner, the appointment of respondent No. 7 was cancelled on the ground that the certificate of matriculation that had been relied upon to secure appointment had been found to be forged and false.

¶16

-2-

¶17

CWP No. 7855 of 2013

¶18

Counsel would further submit that immediately upon the appointment of respondent No. 7 in December, 2011, a representation to such effect that the matriculation certificate was false and forged, had been submitted by the petitioner.

¶19

It is against such factual backdrop and upon a vacancy having arisen on account of the cancellation of the appointment of respondent No. 7 that the post was sought to be filled up by initiating a fresh selection process in the light of memo dated 21.01.2013 issued by the Women and Child Development Welfare Officer, Indri, Karnal at Annexure P-6. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner's herself that she had submitted herself for selection in pursuance to such fresh selection process and had even participated in the same. Apparently, in pursuance to such fresh selection, respondent No. 8 namely Smt. Dulari w/o Subhash has been selected and appointed as Anganwari Helper.

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed staking a claim to be appointed on the post on the basis of being at waiting list Sr. No. 1 in pursuance to the first selection process conducted in the year 2011.

¶21

The present writ petition is wholly mis-conceived. The first selection process had resulted in the appointment of respondent No. 7 i.e. Salindro Devi. The appointment of respondent No. 7 was set aside by the department. The resultant vacancy was sought to be filled up by initiating a selection process afresh. The petitioner inspite of being in knowledge that she was at waiting list Sr. No. 1 in the first selection process has chosen to participate in the second selection process in which respondent No. 8 has been duly selected and appointed. The petitioner having taken her chance in the second selection process for recruitment to the post of Anganwari

¶22

-3-

¶23

CWP No. 7855 of 2013

¶24

Helper and having remained unsuccessful cannot be permitted to turn around and to stake a claim for the post in pursuance to the first selection process.

¶25

There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is

¶26

accordingly dismissed.

¶27

April 11, 2013 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE

Geeta Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Geeta Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New Generation Residents Welfare Society (Regd) Zirakpur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Swarn Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurbachan Singh and Anr.. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Tarsem Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others