IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 5315-16 of 2011 & LPA No. 1992 of 2011 Date of Decision: 31.10.2011. Anand Pal & others --Appellants Versus The State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) C.M. No. 5315 of 2011 Application is allowed. Delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. No.5316 of 2011 & LPA No. 1992 of 2011 This L.P.A is directed against the judgement dated 25.7.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants herein seeking to challenge an order of termination dated 3.5.2011 from the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak with a consequential relief of re-engagement and salary etc. Appellants herein were engaged as Rozgar Sahayak by the Gram Panchayat in respective villages under the scheme launched by the Govt. of India namely Mahatama Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme. Appellants were engaged in 2008. It is alleged that they were paid salary only up to September and from November, 2008 no salary has been paid. Their engagement was ultimately dispensed with on 3.5.2011. The LPA No. 1992 of 2011 -2- State-respondents in their reply challenged the maintainability of the writ petition primarily on the ground that the appointment of the appellants was under a scheme sponsored by the Govt. of India and no writ lies against such an appointment. It is not in dispute that the engagement of the appellants was under the scheme formulated by the Govt. of India and no posts were created as such either on regular or temporary basis. This scheme is identical to the Anganwari Scheme. A similar issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of engagement/employment of Anganwari Workers under the similar scheme framed by the Govt. of India. While considering the question Hon'ble Apex Court held that such appointees are not appointed against any post nor they hold a civil post under the scheme and thus they do not have the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. It was, accordingly, held that no writ is maintainable. The relevant observations made in case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. Ameerbi and others reported as (2007) 11 SCC 681 are contained in paras 20 and 29, which are reproduced hereunder:- “20. Anganwari workers, however, do not carry on any function of the State. They do not hold post under a statute. Their posts are not created. Recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their case. The State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No process of selection for the purpose of their appointment within the constitutional scheme exists. We do not think that the said decision has any application in the instant case. 29. Appointments made under a scheme and recruitment process being carried out through a committee, in our opinion, would ot render the incumbents thereof holders of civil post. Our attention has not LPA No. 1992 of 2011 -3- been drawn to any rule or regulation governing the mode of their recruitment. Some statements in this behalf have been made by the interveners but for the reasons stated hereinbefore, we cannot enter thereinto. A distinction must be made about a post created by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their power under Articles 77 or 162 of the Constitution of India or under a statute vis-a-vis cases of this nature which are sui generis. Terms and conditions of services of an employee may be referable to Acts of appropriate legislature. The matter may also come within the purview of Article 309 of the Constitution of India as proviso appended thereto confers power upon the President or the Governor of a State or other authority, who may be delegated with such power to make rules during the interregnum.” In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 31.10.2011. lucky