IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.16757 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 29, 2010 HARDIP KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. KS Maangat, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit, which was withdrawn. 2. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order (Annexure P-2) vide which respondent No.6 has been appointed as Anganwari Worker. 3. In the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, no additional benefit could be given to respondent No.6 for having served as Anganwari Helper, as she did not have experience for a minimum period of 5 years as Anganwari Helper, as required under the instructions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.16757 of 2010 2 is a handicap person with 50% disability. 5. On reference to the instructions, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that no benefit could be given to respondent No.6, insomuch as the instructions provide that “in case of availability of experienced Anganwadi Worker/Balsevika and Helper, Anganwadi Worker/Balsevika will be given preference”. 6. I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents, while invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. October 29, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?