IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10008 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 30th August, 2010 Harpal Kaur … Petitioner Versus Director, Social Security and Women & Child Dev. Deptt. Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that office order (Annexure P-4) dated 28th June, 2001, whereby respondent No.4 was appointed as an Anganwari Worker, be quashed, as the appointment was in contravention of the guidelines issued by the respondent-State vide Annexure P-3. A further prayer has been made that directions be issued to the respondents to consider and select the petitioner as an Anganwari Worker, as she is more meritorious than the selected candidate-respondent No.4. It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner has passed 12th standard examination and belongs to Backward Class, i.e. ‘Lohar’. She has three years’ experience as a teacher. A post of Anganwari Worker fell vacant at village Rajgarh, tehsil Phul, district Bhatinda. The petitioner applied for the same and competed along with Civil Writ Petition No.10008 of 2001 three other candidates, namely the selected candidate-Shinder Kaur; Jaswinder Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh and Jaswinder Kaur wife of Gurjant Singh. A committee of the office bearers, consisting of Programme Officer as Chairman, Child Development Project Officer and Senior Medical Officer as members and Deputy Director as an Observer, was constituted and the date of interview was fixed as 20th June, 2001. It is stated that neither any publication was made in the newspaper nor any information was sent to the other candidates. A grievance has been made that respondent No.4 was appointed as an Anganwari Worker without having participated in the interview. In the written statement filed, the averments made in the writ petition have been denied and it has been stated that neither any interview was held nor any application was sought. It is further stated that respondent No.4 was not appointed but was transferred from village Bhagsar of block Muktsar to village Rajgarh of block Phul. However, the order of transfer (Annexure R-4) was not implemented. It was later-on, in the year 2001, that Shinder Kaur was appointed to the same post, for which the order of her transfer was passed. It is further stated that vide Annexure R-6, the transfer order was cancelled and an interview was ordered to be held. Furthermore, vide Annexure R-7 dated 19th April, 2004, the work allotted on transfer was withdrawn. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in ‘State of Karnataka and others v. Ameerbi and others’ (2007)11 SCC 681 that an Anganwari Worker working under the Integrated Child Development Services, is not holding a civil post and even though, the services are managed by the Scheme, the authorities managing the Scheme will not be amenable to the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as they are not instrumentalities of the State. The view 2 Civil Writ Petition No.10008 of 2001 formulated by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Ameerbi’s case (supra) was also followed by a Division Bench of this Court in ‘Darshana Devi v. State of Haryana and others’ 2009(1) PLR 174. In the present case, writ is not maintainable, especially when respondent No.4 was transferred to the post of Anganwari worker in block Phul from block Muktsar and later order of transfer was also cancelled. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 30, 2010 rps 3