Dismissed

Gurmeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2024LPA/416/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a writ petition challenging re-selection for the post of Asha Facilitator. The first Selection Committee had wrongly computed incentive weightage using only three years of experience; a reconstituted Committee re-interviewed candidates including the appellant, who scored less than respondent no.5. The Division Bench upheld the Single Bench order and dismissed the appeal

What did the court decide?

None granted; appeal dismissed and Single Bench order dated 15.01.2019 upheld.

Gurmeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

SUNIL 2024.11.28 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

-2-

¶3

LPA-416-2019 (O&M)

¶4

Learned counsel further submitted that once merit list dated 25.06.2018 was finalized wherein present appellant stood selected, there was no question or occasion for yet again conducting the process of selection or interview the candidates again. Procedure so followed, it is submitted, is absolutely erroneous. Learned writ Court, it is contended, has not appreciated the controversy in its correct perspective and impugned order dated 15.01.2019 has been incorrectly passed. It is thus prayed this appeal be allowed and impugned order dated 15.01.2019 be set aside and writ petition be allowed as prayed for.

¶5

Learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the appeal while submitting that appellant cannot gain any benefit from the merit list which was prepared in contravention of applicable guidelines. Selection Committee had incorrectly considered only three completed years of experience for calculating weightage to be given for average incentive earned by candidates per month leading to incorrect merit list. Once this fact came to notice of authorities, Selection Committee was reconstituted and all candidates who had come present including appellant were interviewed again and merit drawn-up in strict accordance with the guidelines. It is thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

¶6

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file with their able assistance.

¶7

SUNIL 2024.11.28 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶8

-3-

¶9

LPA-416-2019 (O&M)

¶10

Appellant, admittedly working as Asha Worker, sought appointment to the post of Asha Facilitator. It is pleaded case of appellant that as per selection criteria mentioned at Srl. No.3(d) of guidelines, attached as Annexure P-1, merit would be calculated as under:-

¶11

(d) while calculating the merit, following weightage may be given:-

¶12

(i) Percentage of the marks obtained in 10+2;

¶13

(ii) 5 marks each for one completed year of experience as ASHA worker;

¶14

(iii) If the average incentive earned by the ASHA worker is more than Rs.1000/- a month, then 5 additional marks may be given and in case the incentive is more than Rs.1500/- a month, then 10 marks can be given;

¶15

It is further undeniable that Selection Committee at the first instance had erred in taking into consideration only three completed years of experience for calculation of weightage to be given for average incentive earned per month by candidates. Once this shortcoming came to notice of authorities, immediate steps were taken, fresh Selection Committee was constituted vide order dated 10.09.2018. Applications invited from eligible candidates. Appellant was admittedly interviewed again by the Selection Board/Committee. It is specifically mentioned in affidavit dated 10.07.2023 of Dr. Gurmail Singh, Incharge CHC, Balianwali, District Bathinda, that appellant scored 135 marks whereas respondent no.5 scored 143 marks. Details of total incentives earned are mentioned in para 7 of affidavit. These facts as mentioned in affidavit dated 10.07.2023, have not been controverted.

¶16

We do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for appellant that in terms of Clause 4 of guidelines, attached as Annexure P-1, objections could only have been received within two days and that the objections having been submitted at a later point of time, could not have been entertained. Appellant has duly participated in subsequent selection process without demure.

¶17

SUNIL 2024.11.28 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

-4-

¶19

LPA-416-2019 (O&M)

¶20

Learned counsel for appellant is unable to point out any infirmity, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order dated 15.01.20219, passed by learned Single Bench, which is accordingly upheld.

¶21

No other argument has been addressed.

¶22

SUNIL 2024.11.28 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurmeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Raghbir Kaur Vs Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation Ltd.

Kuldeep Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

State of Punjab and Another Vs Abhishek Garg and Others

Manjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harjant Singh Vs Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.