l/U HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARI-i : BELASFUR WRIT ?ET!T!0N {5) NG. 1833 9F 2399 Shiv Kumari, wife af Shfi Sukhnaniian, aged about 23 years‘ caste Gond, :‘esideat 0f viliage Kanwamara, Viiiage Panchavat Songara, Janpad Panchayat Pratappha Bistt. surguja (CG). FETiTiGNER Versu$ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Woman and Child Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 2. The Director. Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Di5t‘t, Raipur (CG). 3. The Coilectar, §mhikapun Distt. Surguja . (CG). 4. The District Pmgramme Officer. Womari and Child Development, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG). The Project Officer, Waman arid Chiid Developmeni, Ambikapur. District Surguja {CG}. 6. The Chief Executive Gfme. Janpaei Panchayat Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (CG), 7. Viiiage Panchayat Sengara. through the Sarpanch, village Panchayat Songara, r; Janpad Panchayat Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (CG). Smt. Reeta, wife of Shri Shiv Pujan, resident of Songara, village Panahayat songara, Janpacl Panchayat Pratewur, Distt. Surguja (CG). (Writ petitien under Artieie 2:26:22? {if the Constitutien cf indie) Singie eehch : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agitihotri. J. Preeent :- Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for the eetitieher. Me Smite Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. RESPQNGEI‘éTS ORAL DRDER (Passed on this em day of April, 2009) With the censent ef learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition ie heard hnaliy. 2) By this petition, the petitioner impugne the order dated 22-4-2008 (Annexure — ‘ Pit) passed by; the Direetor. Panchayat. in appeal ' Ne.15$f/B—121l06—07 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner hae been dismissed. q2 3) According ta me learnet! counse! appearing for the petitioner the petitioner. respondent No.8 and some other candidates made applieations for appointment on the pest of Anganbadi Worker for Anganbaoii Centre, Kanwarpara of Gram Panchayat Songara. in‘t’he said seiection process, the name of the petitioner was proposed by the Project Gfticer, but the Soiiector without appreciating the proposal made by the Project Officer, appointed the respondent No.8 on the post of Anganbadi Worker. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is living below poverty line (BPL), passed 8‘” class examination and belongs of Scheduled Tribe category whereas the respondent No8 belongs to Other Backward Class category and is residing far away from theAnganbadi Centre. Kanwarpara. The Collector without appreciating the said facts appointed the respondent No.8, which is illegal and arbitrary. Against the said action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director (Panohayat), which has been dismissed by order dated 22-4-2008. Thus, this petition. ct) Per contra. teamed counset appearing for the State supported the impugned order and submits that the Collector has rightly appointed the respondent No.8 on the post of Anganbadi Worker. 5) i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. White dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. the Director (Panchayat) mainly observed that the name of the petitioner is not in the voter list, which is mandatory requirement for appointment on the post of Anganbadi worker. Even during the course of argument also, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that the name of the petitioner has been included in the voter list. Thus, the order passed by the Director (Panchayat) is just. proper and needs no interference. ' 6) in view of the foregoing, the petition is liable to be and is accordingly Sd/— i’ dismissed at the motion stage itself. 1: satish K. Agnihotri ‘ ‘1 ' g .Judge Gowri /