Single judge dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the appointment of an Anganwari worker. Relying on a Division Bench decision, the court held the petition was not maintainable as the post is non-civil and such appointments fall outside Article 12.
The writ petition was dismissed; liberty granted to seek redressal before civil courts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civl Writ Petition No.1271 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 23, 2011.
Manpreet Kaur versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Petitioner
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
(Oral) Surya Kant, J.
The petitioner seeks a direction for quashing the appointment of respondent No.5 as Anganwari Worker of village Bhawra Ajam Shah, Block Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.
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:-
“.... 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
CWP No.1271 of 2010
[2]
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......”
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.
Dasti.
September 23, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing the appointment of an Anganwari worker is maintainable under Article 12.
Whether the court can grant direction for quashing the appointment of a non-civil post holder.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka vs AmerbiReferred¶16
Int State of Karnataka versus Amerbi, 2007 11 SCC page 681 · Who else cites this
Darshana Devi vs State of HaryanaFollowed¶15
C.W.P.No.244 of 2007 (Darshana Devi versus State of Haryana and others)
Manpreet Kaur
State of Punjab
Respondent No.5
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
