K. Kannan, J. - (1.) BY way of this common judgment, two cases viz. (i) C.W.P. No.244 of 2007 titled 'Darshana Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2) C.W.P. No.4351 of 2007 titled "Kavita v. State of Haryana and Ors.' are disposed off. The selection/appointment of rival candidate namely the sixth respondent vis -a -vis the claim of the petitioner is the subject to challenge in the writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner has several grounds to canvass in the writ petition as regards the so called fabricated certificate regarding the marital status of the sixth respondent and how the appointing authority had manipulated the records to accommodate sixth respondent. These contentions which are purely issues of fact have been denied by respondents and we do not intend to join the issues in such contentions, in view of the limited inquiry that we have been undertaken in this writ petition. We approve of the authorities cited by the respondents that disputed questions of facts cannot adjudicated in writ jurisdiction (please see State of Karnataka and Ors. v. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association and Ors., 2006(1) R.S.J. 587; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. K.V. SharmikSangh and Ors., 2002(4) R.S.J. 256). This Court will not sit as a Court of appeal against the decision of an expert selection Committee as held by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in C.M. Kapoor v. Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agril. University and Ors., 2005(4) R.S.J. 693. It has been held in the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kamataka v. Ameerbi : (2007)11 S.C.C. 681, that the person working as Anganwadi worker does not hold a civil post and the recruitment process is not governed by the Constitution or any statute. This decision was rendered in the context of Anganwadi 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 consisting 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.
(3.) THE petition, therefore, fails and accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to seek reorders in any other forum affording trial on disputed facts and where the jurisdictional limitations that we are beset with are not attracted. Sd/ - Mehtab S. Gill, J.;