IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.11655 of 2008 Date of Decision : September 21, 2011. Raksha Rani .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.K.Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.6. -.- 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.6 as an Anganwari Worker of Village Rampura, Block Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur. 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 governed by the Constitution or any statute. This CWP No.11655 of 2008 [2] 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. The same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of her grievances before the civil court and/or any other appropriate forum. It is directed that the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing this writ petition shall be kept in view for all intents and purposes including for expeditious disposal of the civil suit/petition, as the case may be. Dasti. September 21, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE