av HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition 4227) No.2237 of 2008 Lata Bai @ Lata Devi, wl'o Vinod Satnami, aged about 20 years, r/o viliage Moudha (Kodwa), Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.). PETITIONER Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through ecretary, Department of Women and Chi Deveiopment, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raip! (C.G.). u 2 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kawardha Distt. Kabirdham (CG). 3 Janpad Panchayat Kawardha, through President Janpad Panchayat, Kawardha, Disft Kabirdham (C3). 4 Director, Panchayat, Qhhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 5 Collector, Kawara, Distt. Kabirdham (CG). 6 Shrimati Hirabai Lahere, wlo Jitendra, R/o VEHage Kodwa, Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G) NSTITUTION OF NON-APPLICANT Shri Ambuj Agrawaf, counsel for the petitioner. h Shri Alok Baksi. Govt. Advocate , for the Statei respondent no.1 on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (17.4.2908) Sunii Kumar Sinha. J. Heard on admission. Petitioner Lata Bai @ Lata Devi, ‘wlo Vinod Satnami has chailenged the validity of the order dated 23.1.2008 passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in Revision Case No.242/B.121i2006- 07 whereby the said authority has confrrmed the order passed by the S id , . dh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2270F THE CO iNDtA Appearance: 2 W.P('227) No.2237/2008 AddL Coliector, Kabirdham on 23.5.2007 in Revenue Case No.119-- B/1 2 1 [2006-07. The brief facts are that the petitioner was selected and appointed as an Anganbadi worker by order dated 29‘“ of May 2006 (Annexure P- 3). Her such appointment was challenged by respondent no.6 before the Collector by tiling the aforesaid revenue case. tt appears that two grounds were raised by respondent no.6, they are, (1) the petitioner was not a member of family belonging to Below Poverty Line (BPL) and (2) her name does not find place in the voters‘ list of the concerned village. The coilector after due enquiry found both these allegations to be true and thereafter he cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and directed the appointment of respondent no.6 in place of the petitioner who was fumlling all eligibility criteria. The said order passed by the Addl. Coliector in the aforesaid revenue case was challenged by the petitioner in the said revision case but the revisional authority also took the similar view and ultimately dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that a person to be appointed as Anganbadi worker, should possess the above qualifications. He argues that the finding recorded by the Coilector was not in accordance with law. He vehemently argues that the certificate relating to the member of BPL family was issued by the competent, authority but later on that authority denied the certification and said that by mistake his signatures were taken on the certificate. l have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also considered the contents of the orders passed by the Addl. Collectoi as well as Director, Panchayat. After going through the contents of these two orders. l do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The authorities have rightly recorded the finding that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite criteria for appointment to the post of Anganbadi worker and her appointment was based on wrong facts, which were discovered in the enquiry conducted by the Collector. l do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same-is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd/_ Sunil Kumar Sinha l Judge