IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2479 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: August 06, 2009 Rajni Kaur .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Respondent no. 5 ex parte. Mr. Parminder Pal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 6. Mr. P.C. Arora, Advocate, for respondent no. 7. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Ameerbi and Others, wherein the following has been observed:- “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 C.W.P. No. 2479 of 2008 -2- 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 existed.” 39. It is also not a case where the doctrine of parity of employment can be invoked. It is true that nomenclature of a term of payment is not decisive but the substance is as was held in Jaya Bachchan V. Union of India and Others, but the question has to be determined having regard to the issue involved. We are concerned herein with only one question, viz. whether the respondents are holders of any civil post. We are, having regard to the materials on record, of the view they are not.” Learned counsel, however, states that the respondents can always consider the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances under which respondent no. 7 was appointed. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn, however, with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before Director, Social Security and Women & Child Development, Punjab (respondent no. 2). In case representation is filed within 30 days from today, the same would be dealt with and decided within four months of its filing. 06.08.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?