The petitioner challenged non-appointment as an Anganwari Worker and the appointment of another candidate. The Court held the writ petition not maintainable as the post is non-civil and appointments follow a Government scheme, relying on State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerbi.
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
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.
-1-
CWP No.20138 of 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.20138 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.10.2012.
Kailash Rani
--Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others
--Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:Mr. G.S. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J
The instant writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Worker. Still further, challenge has been made to the order dated 13.07.2012 (Annexure P-5) whereby respondent No.4 has been appointed as an Anganwari Worker.
It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnatka Vs. Ameerbi 2007, Vol.II SCC 681 that an Anganwari Worker does not hold a civil post and the recruitment process is not governed by any statutory provision. It had further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appointments to Anganwari Workers are made in pursuance to a scheme formulated by the Government of India. In other words, since the post of Anganwari Worker is not a civil post, the present
CWP No.20138 of 2012 (O&M)
-2-
writ petition is held to be not maintainable.
The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnatka Vs. Ameerbi was even followed by the Division Bench of this Court in terms of decision dated 24.12.2008 passed in CWP No.244 of 2007
Darshana Devi Vs. State of Haryana & others.
The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed being not
maintainable.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
09.10.2012. harjeet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging non-appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker can be maintained under Article 226 in light of it being a non-civil post.
Whether appointments to Anganwari Workers are governed by statutory provisions or a Government of India scheme.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnatka Vs. AmeerbiApplied¶15
State of Karnatka Vs. Ameerbi 2007, Vol.II SCC 681 · Who else cites this
Darshana Devi Vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶19
CWP No.244 of 2007 Darshana Devi Vs. State of Haryana & others.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kailash Rani
State of Punjab
Tejender Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
