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
"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:-
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RSA-9614-2018 (O&M)
(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."
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RSA-9614-2018 (O&M)
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 totally
ignored the evidence on record while allowing the appeal filed by
respondent No.1. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and
judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018 be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that
the appeal filed by respondent No.1 has rightly been allowed by learned First
Appellate Court by passing a well-reasoned judgment and decree. He,
therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RSA-9614-2018 (O&M)
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole file of this case with their able assistance.
8. A perusal of judgment passed by learned First Appellate Court
shows that it is allowed solely on the ground that directions issued by this
Court vide judgment dated 19.04.2010 were not complied with by official
respondents. And without appreciating the evidence on record which clearly
proved that directions were fully complied with, learned First Appellate
Court has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1.
9. On 09.11.2023, this court passed the following order:-
"It is evident that the first Appellate Court, vide
judgment dated 10.08.2018, held that the selection of the
appellants as Anganwari Workers was not made in
accordance with the directions issued by the High Court.
While quashing the selection of the appellants, the Court
gave liberty to the defendant No.2, to conduct the
appointments afresh. A period of more than five years has
elapsed from the date the directions were issued. A
preliminary hearing of this appeal is yet to take place.
The learned counsel representing the appellants is
directed to disclose the status of fresh selection, if any,
made during the last five years.
List on 28.11.2023, in the urgent list."
10. In compliance of the above referred to order, affidavit of
Mr. Gurwinder Singh, Child Development Project Officer Sunam-2 District
Sangrur dated 22.01.2025 was filed. Relevant portion of the same is
reproduced as under:-
"2. That in the wake of judgment dated 19.04.2010.
Vide letter dated 04.10.2010 fresh applications for the
MOHD AYUB post of Anganwari Workers were 04.10.2010 fresh
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RSA-9614-2018 (O&M)
applications for the post of Anganwari Workers were
invited upto 10.10.2010. Proper announcements by Gram
Panchayat Performa Respondents No.2 were made
through speaker of Gurudwara. Further Proclamation
and other formalities by Performa Respondent No.2 were
also done. It was also made ample clear through these
announcements that respondent No.1 and Kalanwanti
could also apply for the said posts. But Kalanwanti and
Golo Respondent didn't submit their applications for the
post of Anganwari workers. After following the proper
procedure, 17 applications were received excluding
respondents Golo and Kalanwanti. Subsequently, The
Director, women and child development department
constituted a selection committee consisting of District
Programme Officer, Sangrur, CDPO and Superintendent
of the office of District Programme Officer, Sangrur for
the selection of Anganwari Workers in the year 2010. The
selection of new Anganwari workers i.e. Appellant Manjit
Kaur, who is a widow and Jaswinder Kaur (Disabled)
was done on 06.12.2010 and they joined on their posts on
15.12.2010.
Henceforth, after following proper selection process the
appellants were selected as Anganwari workers who
worked till their termination on 11.10.2024 from the
performa defendant 3 i.e. District programme officer
Sangrur in compliance of judgement dated 10.08.2018
passed by the Ld. Addl. District and session judge. As a
consequence the Judgment dated 10.08.2018 passed by
the Ld. Addl. District and Session Judge is liable to be set
aside being devoid of merits."
11. A perusal of the above shows that proper procedure was
followed and directions of this Court dated 09.11.2023 were complied with.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RSA-9614-2018 (O&M)
12. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of the
judgment passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sunam, dated
28.07.2016. The same is reproduced as under:-
"Thereafter, in compliance of order of Hon'ble
High Court dated 19.04.2010 (Exhibit D1), fresh
selections were made and defendants no. 5 and 6 were
appointed as Anganwarhi worker. The plaintiff has
placed on record copy of order dated 04.01.2012 passed
by Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 220 of 2012 (O & M)
Exhibit P25 vide which the writ filed by plaintiffs in
Hon'ble High Court was dismissed with liberty to plaintiff
to file civil suit or approach any other appropriate forum
in accordance with law. The plaintiff in the present case
is not entitled to relief of declaration. A careful perusal of
file shows that after the fresh advertisement for
appointment for post of Anganwarhi worker was made,
17 applications were received in total by the department.
The defendant has placed on record attested copy of
resolution dated 12.10.2010 of Gram Panchayat
Kauhrian Exhibit D4 regarding receiving of 17
applications for the post of Anganwarhi workers. The
plaintiff did not apply for the post of Anganwwarhi woker
whet he fresh selections were being made in view of order
of Hon'ble High Court Exhibit D1. When the plaintiff did
not apply for the post of Anganwarhi worker when the
fresh selections were being made in view of order of
Hon'ble High Court exhibit D1, then the plaintiff has no
right to challenge the selection of Defendants no 5 and 6
as Anganwarhi worker. The plaintiff has argued that
plaintiff had no knowledge when the fresh selection of
Anganwarhi workers were being made and therefore,
plaintiff could not re-apply for appointment as
MOHD AYUB Anganwarhi worker. This argument of plaintiff is not
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RSA-9614-2018 (O&M)
maintainable. It is admitted by plaintiff in the plaint that
plaintiff was working as Anganwarhi worker till
31.12.2010. It is not possible that plaintiff would not have
any knowledge about the advertisement for the fresh post
of Anganwarhi workers when plaintiff were themselves
working as Anganwarhi workers in the concerned
department. It has been further argued by plaintiff that
the department concerned did not advertise fresh post of
Anganwarhi workers as directed by Hon'ble High Court
vide order dated 19.04.2010 through more than one
modes. This argument of plaintiffs is again not
maintainable. If the defendant department did not
advertise posts of Anganwarhi workers through more
than one mode, then the plaintiff was at liberty to initiate
contempt proceedings against concerned department.
Even otherwise, the plaintiff has not filed any appeal
against the order dated 19.04.2010 passed CWP No.
17184 of 2005 in Hon'ble High Court. In the present case
DW1 CDPO Harbans Singh Block Sunam stepped into
witness box as DW1 and placed on record document
Exhibit D1 t Exhibit D8 in his evidence. These documents
were objected to on the ground of mode of proof by
opposite party. The learned predecessor had kept the
objection open to be decided at the time of final
arguments. Heard. This objection of plaintiff regarding
admissibility of above said documents is not
maintainable. The document Exhibit D1 is photo copy of
certified copy of order dated 19.04.2010 passed by
Hon'ble High Court in CWP NO 17184 of 2005. The
passing of this order of Hon'ble High Court is admitted
by plaintiff in the plaint, although the plaintiff has
challenged the legally of this order. So the objection of
plaintiff regarding admissibility of this order dated
MOHD AYUB 19.04.2010 is declined. Exhibit D2 to Exhibit D8 all
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RSA-9614-2018 (O&M)
documents have been attested by Child Development
Project Officer, Sunam-II. Accordingly, the objection of
plaintiff regarding admissibility of these documents is
also declined. In view of above said discussions plaintiff
is not entitled to relief of declaration and issue no. 1 is
decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendants."
13. A perusal of the above shows that even the evidence produced
before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam proves
that the selection of appellants were made after following the directions
dated 09.11.2023 issued by this court.
14. Learned First Appellate Court totally ignored the evidence on
record orally as well as documentary, while allowing the appeal filed by
respondent No.1.
15. In view of the above, judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, is set aside.
16. Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is allowed.
17. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
18. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
10.04.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Saahil/Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
