IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10862 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.11.2010 Rubal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Shailender Mohan, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to enhance the age from 40 years to 45 years for the post of District Child Welfare Officer on the ground that she is divorced woman. In support, reference is made to the instructions issued by the Government, where the age for such like categories of woman requiring consideration is laid down as 45 years. Counsel for the respondents would say that respondent No. 2 is not 'State' within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and in support has referred to the decision in SLP (Civil) No. 9566 of 1980 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4427 of 2005 titled as Dr. Deen Dayal versus Haryana State Council for Child Welfare and others decided on 08.08.2006. Apart from Haryana State Council Child Welfare, the State of Haryana is Civil Writ Petition No. 10862 of 2010 -2- also impleaded as party. The Haryana State Council for Child Welfare may not be the State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, thus, not amenable to writ jurisdiction, still the Government may determine if this welfare organization has also to follow the instructions issued by the Government or not. The prayer of the petitioner may be considered by the respondent-State in this light and an appropriate order be passed. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. November 18, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE