C.W.P. No. 11887 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11887 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 20.10.2011 Anup Kaur ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate and Ms. Rimplejit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, AAG, Punjab. Mr. K.V. Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Darshana Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others passed in C.W.P. No. 244 of 2007 on 24.12.2008, the writ petition is not maintainable in case of Aganwari workers. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- “....It has been held in the decision of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Amerbi, 200711 SCC page 681 that the person working as Anganwari worker does not hold a civil post and the recruitment process if not governed by the Constitution or any statute. This decision was rendered in the context of C.W.P. No. 11887 of 2010 (2) Anganwari workers contesting Panchayat Election without suffering the disqualification under the State Act, that prohibited a person who holds a public office from contesting elections. Admittedly, the employment was offered under the Scheme of Women and Child Development with a Programme Officer in Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Cell constituting the Selection Committee. Though the State of Haryana has been made as party respondent, the appointment offered is through Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Programme and it is not a civil post and the authorities are not instrumentalities of State to be amenable to the definition of “Stage” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India......” In view of the aforesaid decision, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly with a liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of her grievances before an appropriate forum. However, keeping in view the fact that earlier the interim protection was granted to the petitioner by this Court, it is directed that the impugned order shall not be given effect till 31.12.2011 so as to enable the petitioner to approach the alternative forum. October 20, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE