IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.244 of 2007 Date of decision 24.12.2008 Darshana Devi .....Appellant versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S. Gill. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate, for respondent No.6. K. Kannan, J. 1. By way of this common Judgment, two cases viz. (1) CWP No.244 of 2007 titled ' Darshana Devi v. State of Haryana and others' (2) CWP No.4351 of 2007 titled 'Kavita v. State of Haryana and others' are disposed off. The selection/appointment of a rival candidate namely the sixth respondent vis-a-vis the claim of the petitioner is the subject to challenge in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner has several grounds to canvass in the writ petition as regards the so called fabricated certificate regarding the marital status of the sixth respondent and how the appointing authority had manipulated the records to accommodate sixth respondent. These contentions which are purely issues of fact have been denied by respondents and we do not intend to join the issues in such contentions, in view of the limited inquiry that we have been undertaken in this writ petition. We approve of the authorities cited by the respondents that disputed questions of facts cannot adjudicated in writ jurisdiction (please see State of Karnataka and others versus KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association and others 2006 (1) RSJ 587; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. K. V. Sharmik Sangh and others 2002 (4) RSJ 256). This Court will not sit as a Court of appeal against the decision of an expert select Committee as held by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in C. M. Kapoor vs. Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agril. University and others 2005(4) RSJ 693. 3. It has been held in the decision of the Supreme Court in S tate of Karnataka versus Ameerbi 2007 11 SCC Page 681, that the person working as Anganwadi worker does not hold a civil post and the recruitment process is not governed by the Constitution or any statute. This decision was rendered in the context of Anganwadi workers contesting Panchayat Election without suffering the disqualification under the State Act, that prohibited a person who holds a public office from contesting elections. Admittedly the employment was offered under the Scheme of Women and Child Development with a Programme Officer in Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Cell constituting the Selection Committee. Though the State of Haryana has been made as party respondent, the appointment offered is through Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Programme and it is not a civil post and the authorities are not instrumentalities of State to be amenable to the definition of “State” under Article12 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petition, therefore, fails and accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to seek reorders in any other forum affording trial on disputed facts and where the jurisdictional limitations that we are beset with, are not attracted. ( MEHTAB S. GILL ) ( K. KANNAN) JUDGE JUDGE 24.12.2008. A. Kaundal