IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No. 3956 of 2010 Date of Decision: 2.6.2011. Kamaljit Kaur --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents 2. CWP No. 12758 of 2010 Sunita Rani --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate. Mr. B.S. Chahal, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Harshiv Jain, Advocate. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) In view of the common factual background and questions of law being involved, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. These petitions have been filed challenging the appointment of respondent no.4 (in CWP No.3956 of 2010) and respondent no.6 (in CWP No. 12758 of 2010) as Anganwari Workers. Anganwari Workers are appointed under a scheme sponsored by the Central Govt. known as Integrated Child Development Service (I.C.D.S.). The status of Anganwari Workers appointed under such scheme came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. Ameerbi and others reported CWP No. 3956 of 2010 -2- as 2007 (11) SCC 681. On examination of the scheme framed the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the posts of Anganwari Workers are not statutory posts having been created in terms of the scheme, they are not holders of civil posts. It has also been held that they could not carry any function of the State nor the recruitment rules ordinarily are applicable in their cases. The relevant observations are contained in paras 26 and 28 of the aforementioned judgement, which read as under:- “26. Appointments made under a scheme and recruitment process being carried out through a committee, in our opinion, would not render the incumbents thereof holders of civil post. Our attention has not 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 Govt. or the State Governments in exercise of their power under Articles 77 or 162 of the Constitution of India or under a statute vis-vis cases of this nature who are suigeneris. 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 of the Governor of a State or other authority, who may be delegated with such power to make rules during the interregnum. 28. One of the questions which was raised before us was in regard to the right of an Anganwari worker to contest an election. They are indisputably free to do so. A holder of a civil post may not be entitled thereto.” It has also been held that such employees do not become entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was not competent to entertain the petition of such a worker. A Division Bench of this Court relying upon the aforesaid judgement has held that writ in respect to action CWP No. 3956 of 2010 -3- under the scheme is not maintainable. In view of the above, these petitions are dismissed leaving the petitioners to seek remedy under civil law. Copy of this order be placed on record of each connected file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 2.6.2011. lucky