m E cv m? gC) “ THE ma acum- o- Jymggim AT agspg .G_._m ET TTONER PQJL ii r’“ 2é kams 22% £4343i/3939; L smm mama Bast wife mi m'oorgai uec: aicout 36 years re$iémt of viliage Ewiusm Nawaasn Village PmC‘naYat Silli Ta‘hsil Mun geli Distri ct Eila5pur (coGt)¢ WRSU ”w- wPESEQEEwj /l Kumari MaztEgvi éaughter 9f Tej esirmari Prsagéa ugea amut, 24 years resmaqt cf village Mu sax; N aw a gamn , Vil 1 mge Pan chayai ill: Thhsil Mun geli Distxjct Eilaspur (C.G.} pmjec’c o££icer Womm anc’i Chila mvelopnm t, J anpac“; pm ch ayat . Mun gexi Di stri ct Bilaspur (C. G. ) . 3. ”ma Chief waqz‘tive 0 £:?,¢€~31:. CY anpad Pan ChaYat Mun geli Digtrj ct: B‘ lasmr (C.G. ) . ,4'2. OF n... .nm / g P AP g . S nTNDIa HIGH SGURT GF CHHATT§$GARH : BIL£$PU V‘\4\'»\.‘.‘‘‘. n. WRIT PETWQON {Art 22?j MGJ’2S4 GF 2999 PETmONER $mi. Beam 8a§ Vefsus RES?GNDENTS Kumari Hardev§'& G‘thea‘s {Wrif paition under ixri'icie 227 of the Com§§h§iien (35‘ imHa) . $ing§e Beach : Hon’bie $hri Satish K. Agn§hai§§, J. Presem :- $hri Ram Kumar E’iwam coun$e§ fer ihe petitieiwer. Shri ‘1”.3. Thakun Dy, MW. $enefaé "Ea; me gta‘ie'. GRWER gQRgm {Fagged 0a th§s Mm day a? Qacemben 2&3} 1. Wikh the consent (9f iaameé? caunss§ appearirag for 'i'he, pames, ihe petiti'or: is heard fina§iy. .2. ’ The petiiiener, by this petitmn f§§ed under Artideii? 0f ihe J Cerasiituiicn cf §nd§a, impugns the orde.’ dared 4§5-5-28G9 {Annexus'e — W2) passed by ithe 3ire¢tar {Panchaya‘t}; P Chhaftisgarh, Réipun 3n revi5§sn cése 3‘3a2é0ik8gi91a8 2 { mi. Hardevi V. Smi Beeria Sai & Oiiasrs}. > 3. Gn peru$ai of the papefs, ifc was found that the appam‘kmem 9f Na“? was m‘aia‘é by aréer éaateé 2—'?-2Q€37 :esponden% wi€houi as3§gning any masons, giamg the qua§3iiaaticm amd otheg“ crharia.’§e<§uired far appointmem an fne pgéi cf 1 Aangamoadi $ahayika. \ é. The peti‘éioner harem chaliergged the appomtment 0f ihe ' respondent No.4 herein before ihe AdcmianaE Gaiaectar, Biiaspur, 3n case No.1?A1A.89 (15)i2%?-G3 (Smi. Beena Eai v. Kw. Hardevi & 0ghers). (Lg The Asia‘iiionai Cci§ector a'z‘ter having caasiciemé a” the aspacis of the matfer by mder daied ~13-$-2$GS {Annexwe — W1) came to the candusien thai them wea’e 5 appiicatimas made fa? appcimment on the post cf Aanganbadi Sahayika, ~ the iespondent No. Was se%ected withcwk c0ns§de§ing the fact that she was maimed, she had Eeft the vmage to iive w§€h he? husband. The respemknt N0.1 had pm§aced a cemikafe da$ed 5-7-2i397 indicating that she has been &eserted by her husband. Further no Ce&éfi¢ata 0r any a‘uthag descument has beea protguced. Thus, the appain‘imeni 0? the resgwrm‘am Wax: was bad on the gmund that the gape; prececiure fa? seieciior: and agipein‘tmené was net foiioweti. it'was :iirea’£ad by the Add§tiona§ Ceiiecm? that aH the appEcaticmS mag/(be cansidered in accordance with the mies fa? appamtment (m the post of Aangamaadi Sahayika. Being aggrieved by othe order oated ’13-5-2W8 passed by the Additional Coiiec’tor, ’{he resgondem No.1 preferred a revision before me Direc’io: iFanchayeé}. The myeoior {$amchayat) having agreed wTiEh the firzd'mgs anei ordef passed by the Addiiienaa Coihactor c§§sm§ssed ihe fev§eioi1 directmg ’thef: the apgoimmem ‘éf the ceadidetee may §3e ceeeidea'eci in accordance with the prevaaent m3es. Shri Tiwari, ieamee’ ceunee§ .eepearmg for the peti%ioner, ' subm§ts that 4:?2e case of the eemieaer aiong wieh oeher candicietes ought to have been ceesideieé §n “the iight of reievam mies evaigabie at the €§me 0f se§ectiem anei appeimmeni o? the iespondem NGA. Skectien gives"; by ‘me [V’U __ul W /VK/ eul Director (Panshaya’t) fhat the case 5f the candidates shou§d be considered in accmdance with the prevaient ru§es is bad m iaw, 8. E is a trite iaw that me appiications fa? appemtment is h) be cens§dered if} the iighi of ruiesiiaw, wh§ch is prevaiei’:% at ihe time cf cansideraféan, as even if the 'geiitienef is found as se§ecied she came not have been granted appeinimem wim effeci: €rom ihe date when the respendem No.1' was eppo§nied. m that evem the Order of the Direcier {?anchayat) ta consider the appiicaikms 0f concemed pe{sens in the §§g¥§t cf ruEes as prevaQent today i3 jusi & pmpef and does net warrant any interference of this Court. 9. it is weii-nigh established ihat the High Ceurt in exercise of ‘ite exiraordinar‘y iurisdictien under Ariicie 226 anci ’ supervisory jurisdiciion under .erticie 22? of the Constiiutien of indie, shouio‘ refrain itseif from interfering with ihe order passed by the Courts beicw, except in such cases where perversity, iiiegaii'iy, irreguiarit‘y' or imisdiciionei error is wrii 1 iarge on ihe race of ihe resord? which is no: in ihe present _ £aS e. i5. in View of foregoing, the writ peti'iion is devoid of merit and is ’ accordingiy dismissed at ihe mo‘iion siege i‘tseif. Gowri