IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1918 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.9.2011. Geeta Rani --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Selection/appointment of the respondent no.5 as Anganwari Worker, Block Faridkot vide impugned order (Annexure P-8) has been challenged in the present petition on variety of grounds. Maintainability of this petition has been challenged on behalf of the respondents in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. Ameerbi and others reported as 2007 (11) SCC 681. In the aforesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Anganwari Worker is not holding any civil post nor is protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and thus no writ is maintainable regarding the appointment etc. of Anganwari Workers. The relevant observations are 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 CWP No. 1918 of 2010 -2- 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.” In view of the above, this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. I order accordingly. However, the petitioner shall have the liberty to seek remedy under civil law. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.9.2011. lucky