"":'-'\ Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WritPetition (Sl No. 3030 of 2008 PeUtioner Smt. Sakun Bai, D/o. Ramlat, aged about 24 yeare, r/o. wltage Charbhata, Tah. Kawardha, Dist. Kabirdham (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Women and ChBd Devetopment Ctepartment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur CG. 2) Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Fteipur (CG). 3) Collector, Kabeerdham, Distt. Kabirdham (CG). 4) Chief Executive CWicer, Janpad Panchayat, Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kabirdham 9CG). 5) Project Offlcer, Integratsd Child Deveiopment Project, Sahaspur, Lohara, Distt. Kabirdham 6) Gram Panchayat Charbhata, through tts Sarpanch, Block Sahaspur, Lohara, Oistt. Kabirdham (CG). 7) Smt. Lata Bai, w/o. Shriv Kumar, R/o. Charbhata, Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham OWrit Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Indrasen Sahu, counsel for thepetitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advoeate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 19uldayofJune 2008) The petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi Sahayaka at Anganbadi Center, Charbhata, on giving preference to the petitioner on the ground that she was a deserted lady. The petitioner has produced a certifioate to the effect i.e., Talak Ikrarnama (Annexure P/2) issued by Lodhi Kaushik — 2. rf '-<! Samaj, Kawardha, on 25-1-2004. The appointment of the petitioner was chatlenged on the ground that preference given to the petifener was not correct and in accordance with Anganbadi Schem®as prescribed in Ctause 5 of letter dated 3-2-2006 (AnnewireP/l). 2) The brief facts, in nutshell, are that Lata Bai - respondent No.7 was appointed as Anganbadl Sahayaka at village Ba., Charbhata, by order dated 4-7-2036 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Chief Executive OfRcer, Janpad Panchayat, Sahaspur Lohara, The petitioner challengwl the appointment of the respondent No.7 on the ground that the pstitioner is a deseited lady, thus, preference should be giwn to her and the patitioner be appointed in place of respondent No.7. The Coitector, by order dated 17-5-2007 in appeal No. 2-8-121 year 2006-07 (Annexure P/6) quashed the appointment of the respondent No.7 and directed the respondent No.5 to appoint the petitioner in her place. Beingaggrieved, the respondent No.7 preferred a revision under Rute 5 of the C.G. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995 before the Director, Panchayat, C.G. Raipur. The Director, Panchayat, after hearing the parties and examtning the respective cases of the parties, ailowed the revision by order dated 7-5-2008 (Annexure P/9) setting aside the order dated 17-5-2007 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Coliector, whereby the petitioner was directed to be appointed as Anganbadi Sahayaka in place of respondent No.7. 3) Shri indersen Sahu, learned counsel appeartng for the petitloner submits that the pet'rtioner was a deserted iady on the basis (rf certificate nameiy Talak Ikrarnama (Annexure P/2) issued by Lodhi Kaushik Samaj, Kawardha. 4) The Director, Panchayat, after having heard learned counsel for the parties hetd that the certificate i.e., Talak Ikrarnama produced by ftie % 1 J/ II -z- lijr^^"s?"' -^ -'t-Sil petitioner was not in accordance with law as Sarpancdh or Samaj cannot issue a certiflcate of this nature and the same has to be passed uncter the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short.the Act, 1955"). The petitioner failed to estabiish Taiak Ikrarnama under Section 13ofthe Act, 1955. Thus, no reliance can be made on the said cerWicate issued by Ladhi Kaushik Samaj. Admittediy, ttie respon$ient No.7 is a disabled candidate and preference given to the petitioner was contrary to the Anganbadi Scheme. 5) i have heard iearned counsel for the petitioner, perused pleadings and documents produced by the petitioner. 6) On perusal of Talak Ikramama, which is the main basis for grant of preference to the petitioner, it cannot be held as legai document. The caption of the said document i.e., Talak Ikrarnama cannot be ghfen any tegal sanction. If the petitioner claims status of a deserted iady on the basis of divoree, a decree/order has to be pa^ed by the competent authority under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, 1955. Thus, reasoning and Judgment of the Director, Panchayat, Is unexceptional and does not warrant intefference. 7) Accordingiy, the petition is dismissed summarily. Sajy Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge