Civil Writ Petition No. 9293 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9293 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: September 16, 2011 Dhanwanti .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. K.L. Saini, Advocate, for Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Notice of motion was issued, but the present writ petition may not be maintainable in view of the detailed order passed in C.W.P No.6432 of 2011 (Poonam Rani Versus State of Haryana and others) decided on 7.7.2011, which is as under:- “The petitioner seeks appointment to the post of Angarwari worker. The grievance is that the petitioner unjustly has not been called for interview though she was required to produce the dependent certificate. My attention has been invited to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Darshana Devi Versus State of Haryana and others , 2009 (1) PLR 174, where it has been held on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Civil Writ Petition No. 9293 of 2010 -2- Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Versus Ameerbi, (2007) 11 SCC 681 that the person working as Angarwadi worker does not hold a civil post and the recruitment process is not governed by the Constitution or any statute. That being the position, the writ petition could not be maintainable as the authorities are not instrumentalities of State to be amenable to the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner, if so advised, may avail the alternative remedy as may be available to the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to have the alternative remedy.” The present writ petition is also dismissed in terms of Poonam Rani's case (supra). September 16, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE