IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20332 of 2009 Date of Decision: 05.09.2011 Ravinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr. S.S.Chadha, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The petitioner has highlighted some alleged gross irregularities/illegalities committed in the appointments of Anganwari workers/helpers. In view of the judgment dated 24.12.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 244 of 2008 (Darshana Devi V. State of Haryana and others) the writ petition challenging the selection of Anganwari workers/helpers is not maintainable and the petitioner has to be relegated to an alternative remedy. However, keeping in view the fact that the alleged irregularities/illegalities committed in the appointments of Anganwari workers/helpers have already been pointed out by the petitioner to CWP No. 20332 of 2009 [2] respondents No.2 and 3 through various complaints, which are said to have not been responded so far, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with direction to respondent No.2 to hold a fact finding enquiry and take an appropriate decision on those complaints in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If still dissatisfied the petitioner shall avail alternative remedy, as may be permissible in law. (SURYA KANT) 05.09.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'