CWP No.16976 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.16976 of 2007 Date of decision: 23.9.2008 Saneh Lata ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has prayed in the present petition that a direction be issued to respondents No.2 & 3 to finalize the selection for appointment of Anganwari Worker. She has further prayed that she be appointed on the said post. The grievance of the petitioner is that her application has not been forwarded for Anganwari Worker. A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 wherein it has been categorically stated that name of village Khojepur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, to which the petitioner belongs, does not fall in the list of 2691 Anganwari Centres. The respondents have annexed list of Anganwari Centres for Gurdaspur Block as Annexure R-1 to show that the village of the petitioner does not fall within the same. As village Khojepur, Tehsil and District CWP No.16976 of 2007 2 Gurdaspur did not figure in the list of Anganwari cantres, the claim of the petitioner for appointment is totally baseless. Thus, there being no vacancy/post of Anganwari Worker/Helper in village Khojepur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, no cause of action had accrued to the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that application of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwari worker was not forwarded by the Sarpanch i.e. respondent No.4 due to malafide reasons. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, referred to Annexure R-1 to show that no Anganwari Centre was approved and/or provided for village Khojepur to which the petitioner belongs. We have perused Annexure R-1 as well as other Annexures annexed to the reply. It is clear that village Khojepur does not figure in the list of Anganwari Centres approved for District Gurdaspur. The petitioner has not been able to rebut this contention of the answering respondents, nor any rejoinder to the reply has been filed. We, thus, find no merit in the writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE September 23, 2008 'rajpal'