IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MANJIT KAUR AND ANR. ......Appellants Vs.

GOLO KAUR AND ORS. .....Respondents Reserved on : 07.04.2026 Pronounced on: 10.04.2026 Uploaded on: 10.04.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Ayush Sarna, Advocate for Mr. Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Gaurav Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral)

1. The present regular second appeal is filed against judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby appeal filed by respondent No.1 was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Anganwadi workers were appointed in the year 2004. However, appointment of respondent No.1 and respondent No.7 were declared illegal and was quashed by this court vide judgment dated 19.04.2010 with the following directions:-

“Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment order dated 18.12.2004 (Annexure P-10) is hereby quashed with the following directions:-

(i) the Director, Department of Social Security, Women and Child Development shall ensure that the posts of Anganwari Workers are properly advertised in the village through more than one modes. The gram Panchayat alone shall not be given the responsibility of advertising the posts. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 and 7 shall be at liberty to re-apply in response to the fresh advertisement;

(ii) The Programme Officer, Women and Child Development, Sangrur shall ensure that all the eligible candidates including those who have acquired eligibility after 2004 are given opportunity to compete for both the posts;

(iii) owing to the allegations and counter allegations made against the Sarpanch and the Child Development and Project Officer, Sunam, the Director – respondent No. 2 is directed to constitute a Selection Committee to be headed by an Officer not below the rank of Programme Officer, who shall then interview and recommend the names of candidates strictly as per the Government policy. The selection process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received/

(iv) keeping in view the larger public interest, respondents No. 6 and 7 shall be permitted to continue as Anganwari Workers till fresh selection is made. However, they shall not be granted any weightage or benefit of 'experience' gained by them while working as Anganwari Workers through illegal appointment. As soon as the fresh selections are made, respondents No. 6 and 7, if they are not amongst the selected candidates, shall make room for the newly selected candidates.”

3. In compliance of the directions of this Court, fresh applications were invited vide communication dated 04.10.2010. Public announcement was made through the speaker of village Gurudwara and other customary modes of proclamation. Pursuant thereto, 17 applications were received from eligible candidates of the village. The Director, Women and Child Development Department, constituted a duly authorized selection committee comprising of District Programmer Officer, CDPO, and Superintendent for conducting the selection.

4. After following due procedure, appellants were selected on 06.12.2010 and joined their duties on 15.12.2010. Respondent Nos.1 and 7 filed civil suit challenging appointment of appellants. Civil suit filed by them was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sunam. Respondent No.1 filed appeal against the same which was allowed. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that learned First Appellate Court has wrongly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.1. He further contends that learned First Appellate Court has