IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.1843 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 SUNITA DEVI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. MS Balianwali, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Lalit Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. KK Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to resolution No.17 dated 13.9.2007 (Annexure P-7) vide which the petitioner has not been appointed Anganwari Worker by Municipal Council, Budhlada, although the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Child Development and Panchayat Officer, Budhlada. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has pointed out that under the provisions of Section 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the petitioner has an alternate remedy to challenge the resolution. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further states that no objection in regard to Civil Writ Petition No.1843 of 2008 2 limitation, if any, would be taken. 3. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. September 20, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?