M cr? /“ Singie Bemh IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONts) No.. ‘Bdwf /2011 PETITIONER: / Smt. Mithla Bai, W/o Lakhendra Das Aged about 25 years, R/o Village Limo,Tahsi1 — Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) y VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women and e Child. Welfare Department. D.K.s; Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.. Commissioner, Raipur Division, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) 3. Additiénai Collector Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. The Project Officer, Women and Child Development Project, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) J 5. The District, Women and , Child Development Project, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 6. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) ' 7. Smt Sivbati @ Sanjana w/o (1/ Sahebdas aged about 26 Years. R/o Village Limo, Tahsil ~ Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.)‘ 8. Sarpanch/ Sachiv Gram Panchayat Limo, Tah- Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) ' WRIT PETITION U A 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTION ORDER TO DO JUSTICEVIN THE MATTER 1. M PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As stated above in the cause title. i W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 2192 of 201 1 PETITIONER Smt. Mithla Bai VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh and others RESPONDENTS Shri Sanjay Agrawal counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Shridhar PL for respondent Nos.1 to 5. None for respondent No.6 though served. Shri Anumesh Shrivastava counsel for respondent No.7. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O R D E R (06.09.2011) Challenge in this petition‘is to the order dated 17.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Raipur, Division Raipur deciding the revision filed by respondent No.7 on merits and directing for initiation of fresh proceedings regarding appointment of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Limo. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 29.5.2006 vide Annexure P-3, the petitioner was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Centre, Limo, District Kabirdham which was assailed by spondent No.7 namely Smt. 'Sivbati alias Sanjana before the Additional, Collector, Kabirdham in Revenue Case No. 125/B- 121/2006~07. Said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Collector on 6.7.2007 (Annexure P-4) on the ground of limitation. This order was assailed by respondent No.7 before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Revision No. 172/B-121/2010-11 and while deciding the said revision on merits, Commissioner has neither accepted the case of respondent No.7 nor found the appointment of the petitioner as valid and thus directed for initiating fresh appointment proceedings of Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre, Limo. Re 400 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Additional Collector dismissed the case of respondent No.7 vide order dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P-4) only on the ground of limitation, the Revisional Court i.e. Commissioner Raipur, Division Raipur ought not to have decided the case on merits and it was under obligation to decide the revision only on the point of limitation i.e. legality and propriety of the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 6.7.2007. He submits that the RevisiOnal Court has erred in law in entering into the merits of the case and passing the order for initiating fresh recruitment proceedings. His further submission is that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity to contest his case on merits. 4. Counsel for the respondents support the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submit that the Commissioner Raipur, Division Raipur should have decided the revision on the point of limitation only and not on merits. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. From order dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P,-4) it is apparent that the Additional Collector dismissed the appeal of respondent No.7 only on the ground of limitation and did not say anything on the merits of the case. Learned Commissioner while passing the order impugned ated 17.3.2011 has un-necessarily entered into the merits of the case and passed the order neither in favour of the petitioner nOr respondent No.7 and directed for initiating fresh recruitment proceedings. 7. ln view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the Commissioner dated 17.3.2011 being contrary to the provisions of law is unsustainable and therefore liable to be set aside. lt is set aside as such. Matter is remitted to the Commissioner fOr deciding the revision of respondent No.7 confining itself to the order dated 6.7.2007 passed by the Additional Collector i.e. whether the Additional Collector was justified in rejecting the Revenue Case No. 125/B-121/2006-07 only on the point of limitation. d ' -3_ 8. No opinion has been expressed on merits of the case and the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, would be at liberty to decide the revision in accordance with law on the basis of documents available with it. 9. Petitioner as well as respondent No.7 will appear before the Court of the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur on 26.9.2011 and after giving due opportunity to the parties Commissioner will pass the order afresh. Sd/— 10. Petition is thus allowed. s Pritinker Diwaker J u dge