Dismissed

Kuldeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Sept 2011CWP/12020/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment as an Anganwari Worker. Relying on classification of the post as non-civil under ICDS Scheme and citing Karnataka versus Amergi, the court held the petition not maintainable, directing the petitioner to civil courts.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to seek redressal in civil court.

Kuldeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civl Writ Petition No.12020 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 21, 2011.

¶3

Kuldeep Kaur ..... Petitioner versus

¶4

State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶6

Present : Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

¶7

-.-

¶8

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶12

The petitioner seeks a direction for her appointment as an Anganwari Worker of village Rahela Haji, Block Mamdot, Tehsil dan District Ferozepur while dispensing with the services of respondent No.5 as Anganwari Worker of the said village.

¶13

A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.12.2008 passed in C.W.P.No.244 of 2007 (Darshana Devi versus State of Haryana and others), held as follows:-

¶14

“.... It has been held in the decision of the Supreme Court ini State of Karnataka versus Amerbi, 2007 11 SCC page 681, that the person working as Anganwari worker does not hold a civil post and the recruitment process is not governed by the Constitution or any statute. This

¶15

CWP No.12020 of 2010

¶16

[2]

¶17

decision was rendered in the context of 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 “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India......”

¶18

In view of the above decision of the Division Bench, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of her grievances before the civil court and/or any other appropriate forum. It is directed that the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing this writ petition shall be kept in view for all intents and purposes including for expeditious disposal of the civil suit/petition, as the case may be.

Kuldeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parminder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Gurmej Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harjinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Raksha Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bakhsish Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kashmir Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another