CWP-8163 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 135 Paramjeet Kaur State of Punjab and CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Female) under 2. obtained 51 marks and respondent No.5 also had the same marks but has been appointed 3. selected candidate in the category secured 53 marks and as such, she could not be appointed respondent No.5 Category, being less tha whereas the petitioner time of Advertisement controvert. 8163-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Paramjeet Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Amardeep Singh Mann, Advocate Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petition is for respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a Purpose Health Worker (Female) under The submission of learned counsel is that the petitioner obtained 51 marks and respondent No.5 also had the same marks but has been appointed despite he being also elder in age. Learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the last selected candidate in the category under which the petitioner applied had secured 53 marks and as such, she could not be appointed respondent No.5 is concerned, she has been considered in General , being less than 37 years, the upper age limit prescribed, whereas the petitioner could not be as she was time of Advertisement, which fact her learned counsel could not -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8163-2025 (O & M) Date of decision: 24.03.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Amardeep Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a Purpose Health Worker (Female) under SC (R&O) Category. The submission of learned counsel is that the petitioner obtained 51 marks and respondent No.5 also had the same marks but has elder in age. Learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the last which the petitioner applied had secured 53 marks and as such, she could not be appointed. Insofar as has been considered in General the upper age limit prescribed, could not be as she was 40 years & 4 months at the , which fact her learned counsel could not ASHOK KUMAR 2025.03.25 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8163 4. 5. 24.03.2025 ashok Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 8163-2025 No other argument has been raised. In view the above, the present petition is dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No -2- o other argument has been raised. In view the above, the present petition is dismissed. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE (AMAN CHAUDHARY) ASHOK KUMAR 2025.03.25 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document