MANJIT KAUR AND ANR vs GOLO KAUR AND ORS — RSA/9614/2018

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011463452018

Filing Number

RSA/9614/2018

Filing Date

21-Sep-2018

Registration No

RSA/9614/2018

Registration Date

16-Dec-2018

Judge

Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma

Coram

Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma

Bench Type

Single

Category

26.1 - RSA SERVICE ( 497 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANJIT KAUR AND ANR

    Adv. PARVEEN KUMAR GARG

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GOLO KAUR AND ORS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Mrs. Justice Sudeepti SharmaView PDF

    Case Summary The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the lower court's judgment that had quashed the appellants' appointments as Anganwadi Workers. The court found that the appellants were properly selected in 2010 following transparent procedures with public announcements through multiple modes, 17 eligible candidates applied, and a duly constituted selection committee conducted interviews—all in compliance with the High Court's 2010 directions. The First Appellate Court had wrongly ignored the evidence proving procedural compliance while allowing respondent No.1's challenge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Sep-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/9614/2018

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the lower court's judgment that had quashed the appellants' appointments as Anganwadi Workers. The court found that the appellants were properly selected in 2010 following transparent procedures with public announcements through multiple modes, 17 eligible candidates applied, and a duly constituted selection committee conducted interviews—all in compliance with the High Court's 2010 directions. The First Appellate Court had wrongly ignored the evidence proving procedural compliance while allowing respondent No.1's challenge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case