G^ l^<l^~~ BEFORE^LQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WRITPETmON(S')No.t^^v\ /2010 ^ PETITIONER Sushma Tiwari, D/o Shri Rajkumar Tiwari, aged ^- abojut t^ears, R/o Ward No.3, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 ^ ^ ^" ^y;. '^ ..<^ 4^ "4^" "y^y 2. ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Sarswati Thakur, Daughter of Shri Shrawan Singh Thakur, R/o Ward No. 3, Thakurpara, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^. ^' Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. >• Director, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Raipur(C.G.) lill III 11 !i!J] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. The above named Petitioner respectfully submits as under:- ^ ,^i ^.- HiGH COURT OF CHHATTfSGARh8: BJLMSPUK SmaSe Bench: Hon'bie Shri wlanliicira Tvlohan Shnv"astevi^J_. WRi"LPETmQNiSlNp.42f4^01u PETiTSGNER RESPGNDENTS Sushma Tiwari Versus State of Chhattisgam and others WRiT PETiTiON UNDER ARTiCLE 228 GF TnE CONSiTUTiON OF iND|A Present: - Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petjtioner. Shri MJJL Singh, Panei Lawyer fuf the State on advance copy. Shri Mirza H^fiz Bea- coonsel for resDondent No-2 on caveat. ORAL . (Passed on 11th ofAugust, 2010) Heard on admisteion and appiicajjon fbr interim relief. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petltioner was duiy appoJnted on the post of Aanganbadi worker against whlch an appeal was preferred before the Addltionai Coljector by the respondent No.2 and the Addltionaj Collector vlde jts order dated 16/07/09 dismissedthe appeai upholdlng seiection ofthe petHJoner. However, in the appeal filed before the Director, tne order passed by the Coiiector on 16/07709 has been reverseu and the appointment of the petitjoner has been found iiiegai. 3. Learned counsei for the petiuoner submits that the father of the peutioner is a retired Govemment Sen/ant and that her husband is working in the Police 'department, who has deserted the petttt0ner.it is also submltted that the Addjtionai Coiiector in its or<3er found the petitloner and nespondent No.2 equaj jn ali respects, the decision ofthe President In Counciicc^uld not be interfered in the absence of any iliegajity. it is aiso submitted that no grounu that the petitloners husband in Government Semce was raised before the Additionai Goli^Qr by g^ii^^' respondent No.2. Iftn-at Is to be considered, then even respondent No.2 is not eiigibie as the unde of respondent No.2 is a Government Sen/ant and working as Project Officer. it is aiso submitteu that financlal condition of respondent No.2 is better than that of the petitioner. It is aiso argued that the appeiiate authority acted erroneousiy in disbeiieving the petitioner's claim of she being deserted by her husband. Last submission of ieamed counsel for the petitloner is that the appea! which was preferred before the appeliate authority i.e. the Additionai Coiiector, was barred by iimitation. as provided under Ruje 56 of CnhatSisgarh Mumcipai Employees (Recruitment and Condiyons of Seivice) Ruies, 1968, yet the appeal has been entertained. 4. Submisslon of iearned counsei for the Caveator / Tespondent No.2 is that neither in the appeai before the AddltionaS Collector nor before the Director, the gfound of appeai being barred by lirTHtation has beer? ralsed. It Is also subnfijttud that ciear finding of fact has been recorded that the husband of the petitloner Is working in Poiice Department. Therefore, petluoner is not at all eliglbie to be employed as Aanyanbadi worker. it is aiso submitted that the appeliate authority has considered the materiai on record and has recorded fsndlng offact by disbeiieviny the petitioners cialm of being deserted, on the groynd that the certificate was recentiy obtained and therefore no Interference can be made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of indla.. 5. From the orders passed by the Addjtlonal Coilector .as weil as by the Director, it is nowhere reflected that the petltioner raised any objectjon regarding malntainabiiity ofthe appeal on the ground that it is barred by iimitation. For the first time, this ground has beeri raised in this Court. There is no.averment that such ground has been raised before the Additlonal Coliector or the Director but jtot considered. in the absence of any such ground tyken, the chaiienge to the ^..^l"":<>^<-. / ,. "'-..-;..1:;-•-;%,' 1 /, ^^y ^ .^ irnpugned order on the said ground cannQt be sustalned. From the order of the appeiiate authority/Directoi-, it is found that the DSrector has taken Into consideration, the material on record and has recorded finding that the petitioner has submitted certificate of being deserted whlch was issued oniy on 20/02/06 and no other proof of being deserted has been piaced on record. Therefore, the petiuoner is not entitied to benefit of the status of deserted Jady. The appeiiate authority has aiso taken into considerauon the order dated 15/01/02 passed by the Judicial Megistrate, 1st Ciass who oame to the conciusson that the respondent No.2 is not iiving with her 'nusband and is a deserted iady. The appeliate authority has aiso taken into consideration the income ofthe petluoner as weli as respondent No.2. The appeliate authority has aiso recorded that the husband of the petitioner is working In the Police department and therefbre she is not eilyibie for appointrneht on the post of Aanganbadl Worker. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. 6. in the considered opinion of this Court, the appeiiate authority has taken into consideration various submissEons made before It and has recorded flndlngs which cannot be said to be pen/erse or sufi'eriny from any apparent error of law or fact. Thls Court whiie examining correctness and vaiidity of order passed by the appeiiate authority would not act as an appellate authority. in view of the aforesald discusslons, i am not inciined to admlt the petition and the petition is ijabie to be dismissed summariiy. 7. Accordlngly, the petition Is dismissed at the motion stage Itselt 1 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge