Dhanwanti vs State of Haryana and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—Notice of motion was issued, but the present writ petition may not be maintainable in view of the detailed order passed in CWP No. 6432 of 2011 (Poonam Rani v. State of Haryana and Ors. decided on 7.7.2011, which is as under:

The Petitioner seeks appointment to the post of Angarwari worker. The grievance is that the Petitioner unjustly has not been called for interview though she was required to produce the dependent certificate.

My attention has been invited to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Darshana Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2009 (1) PLR 174, where it has been held on the basis of law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi (2007) 11 SCC 681 that the person working as Angarwadi worker does not hold a civil post and the recruitment process is not governed by the Constitution or any statute. That being the position, the writ petition could not be maintainable as the authorities are not instrumentalities of State to be amenable to the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the alternative remedy as may be available to the Petitioner in accordance with law.

The writ petition is, thus, dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to have the alternative remedy.

The present writ petition is also dismissed in terms of Poonam Rani''s case (supra).