IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.4677 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 08, 2011. Madhvi Jamwal .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Ms.R.S.Manaise, Advocate, for respondent No.4. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the appointment of respondent No.4 as an Anganwari Worker of village Kothey Khiala, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. It is alleged that the appointment of respondent No.4 as Anganwari Worker is made in an arbitrary and illegal manner. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.12.2008 passed in C.W.P.No.244 of 2007 (Darshana Devi versus State of Haryana and others), held as follows:- “.... It has been held in the decision of the Supreme Court ini State of Karnataka versus Amerbi, 2007 11 SCC page 681, that the person working as Anganwari worker does not hold a civil post and the recruitment process is not CWP No.4677 of 2011 [2] governed by the Constitution or any statute. This decision was rendered in the context of Anganwari 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 Article 12 of the Constitution of India......” In view of the above decision of the Division Bench, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable. However, in the interest of justice and to obviate the hardship of another round of litigation, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Departmental/Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal/representation within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner is still dissatisfied, liberty is granted to him to approach the appropriate forum. Dasti. September 08, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE