HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4705/2007 Durga Devi W/o Shri Nagar Mal Saini, aged about 30 years, resident of Dhani Harbamba ki, Panclangi, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the director, Women & Child Development Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Deputy director, I.C.D.S Women & Child Development Department, Jhunjhunu. 3. District Collector, Jhunjhunu. 4. Child Development project Officer, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. 5. Gram Panchayat Pachlangi, Panchayat Samii, Udaipurwati through its Secretary. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta Mr. Akash Gaur, Dy.GC Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG Mr. SM Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/02/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenged has been led to the impugned order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the respondents by which services of the petitioner have been terminated form the post of Anganbari Karyakarta. 2. At the outset, learned counsels for the respondents apprised this Court that Anganbari workers are not protected by the statutory scheme, hence, they have no (2 of 4) [CW-4705/2007] statutory right to hold any post. Counsels submit that the writ petition is not maintainable in such like matters as the issue has already been set at rest by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Ameerbi and Ors. reported in 2007 (11) SCC 681. Counsel submits that subsequently the same view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baby Choudhary vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (DB Civil Writ Petition No.43/2015) on 11.05.2015. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the instant petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of maintainability. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.02.2006 by which her services from the post of Anganbari Karyakarta have been terminated. This fact is not in dispute that the issue involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Apex Court in the case of Ameerbi (supra), which has been subsequently followed by the Division of this Court in the case of Baby Choudhary (supra) and it has been held in para 11 to 15 as under: "11. In Harsha Choudhary V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra), the Special Appeal was filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. The Division Bench was of the opinion that on the facts, the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner could be examined by the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of (3 of 4) [CW-4705/2007] India because it did not involve any disputed question of fact, as expressed by the Writ Court so as to relegate the petitioner to file a civil suit in the Civil Court. Looking to the nature of the reliefs coupled with the averements made in the writ petition, the matter did not involve any disputed question of fact and thus, referring to the settled principles of law that if any relief is claimed against the State of any of its instrumentality on admitted facts and if there is no statutory alternative remedy available under any law to the writ petitioner, then writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution can be entertained by the High Court, notices were issued with observation that the writ petition will be decided after returns are filed by the respondents. 12. As observed by us, in Harsha Choudhary V/s State of Rajasthani & ors. (supra), no argument was raised nor the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V/s Ameerbi (supra) was cited before the Division Bench, which clearly held that Anganwadi workers are not protected by any statutory scheme. The appointment of Anganwadi workers is not on the post under any statute and the State Government is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No process of selection for the purpose of their appointment within the constitutional scheme existed (para 20). 13. The judgment in State of Karnataka V/s Ameerbi (supra) clearly holds that the Anganwadi workers do not have any statutory right to hold the post nor the constitutional scheme is applicable. 14. In view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V/s Ameerbi (supra), which is binding on this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the grounds of challenge, which are based on the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, are not maintainable. The judgment in Harsha Choudhary V/s State of Rajasthan (supra) is per incuriam (in ignorance (4 of 4) [CW-4705/2007] of), the binding precedent in State of Karnataka V/s Ameerbi (supra) decided by the Supreme Court. 15. The reference is answered accordingly and the writ petition is dismissed." 5. Keeping in view the above proposition of law as expounded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baby Choudhary (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed on the ground of its maintainability before this Court. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue the remedies available to her in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/87