HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATJ31LASPUR\ Coram: ADDeJlant X- 11 --^' Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra^M!shra& Hon'bleShri R.N.Chandrakar.JJ WritADpealNo.126of2011 Smt. Vimla, W/o Labhoram Sidar, aged about 27 yeaps, R/6 Viilage Khairakhurd, Gram Panchayat Darri, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir- Champa (CG) Vs. ResDondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Department of Panchayat, DKS. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Djrector (Panchayat) Rajpur (CG) The Additionaj Collector, District Janjgjr-Champa (CG) ; District Programme Officer, Department pf Women and Chlld Welfare, District Janjgir Champa (CG) Hariram Sidar Chjef Executive Offioer, Janpad Panqhayat Dabhra, District Janjgjr-Champa (CG) Project Officer Intigrated Women and CMId Development Rrojeet Dabhra, Distnct Janjgjr-Champa (CG) Shri Kanwaldhar Prasad Sahu, President Women and Child Heaith Welfare Society, Janpad Panchayat, Dabhra, District Janjgjr Champa (CG) (Respondent No.1 to 7 were respondent No.1 to ^7 in the writ petition) Smt. Saraswati, W/o Kanwaldhar, aged about 23 years, paste Sanwra, Occupatlon Anganba<|li Karyakarta, village Khairakhurd, Gram Panchayat Darri, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir- Champa (CG) (Petitjoner) Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the appeijant. ShriMPS. BhatJa.G.A.fortheStatei. "^ :la. -^ r ORAL JUDGMENT (04.4.2011) The writ petjtion filed by the respondent No.8 questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by the AddJtional Collector, Janjgir-Champa dated 18.4.2007 and order ofthe Director, Panchayat dated 3.3.2008 confirming the order of Additional Collector has been allowed by learned Single Judge vide jmpugned order. Hence this writ appeat. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat constituted a committee for appointment of Anganbadi workers for the Anganbadi centers of Janpad Panchayat, Dabhra. The appellant and the respondent No.8 partjcipated in the selection process and after completing the entire selection process, she was appointed on the post of Anganbadi worker. The appellant herein preferred an appeal under Section 91 of the Chhattlsgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The Additional Collector, by order dated 18.4.2007, cancelled the appointment order. of the respondent No.8. The appeal preferred by the respondent No.8 was again dismissed by Director, Panchayat. However, her writ petition has been allowed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Additional ColJector as well as the Director, Panchayat have observed that respondent No.8 is having more than 5 acres of land and as such she does not belong to the Below Poverty Line category candidate. The respondent No.2 and 3 also considered that while deleting the name of the appellant from the select list, no reasons were assigned. The appellant had undergone training of Kishori Balika in the year 1999 and this aspect was considered bythe Selection Committee while recommending her name. However, appointment orderwas issued in favour of the respondent ^ II ' 1 •^^F;^^^ ^1. ^ 'v^ ;"/' c. No.8. Appellant through her husband demanded information from respondents No.3 & 4 to furnish her as to why her name was recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment. However, no information was provided under Right to Informatlon Act (Annexure A-3). Heard learned counsel for theappellant Perused the pteadings of the respective parties and documents appended therewith. Also perused the order of appointment as well as the orders passed by the Additional Collector and Director, Panchayat including the impugned order. From perusal of the order passed by the Additional Collector and subsequently affirmed by the Director, Panchayat, it is clear that both the authorities have allowed the appeal/revisionof the appellant only on the ground that the name of the appellant was earlier approved by the Committee and the same w&s subsequently changed by the Janpad Panchayat vide its resolution dated 03.09.2006 and the resolutibn weis passed to appoint respondent No.8 as Ahganbadi wQr^er. There is nothing on record to show that any weightage was given by the Committee for apprQVing her name for appointment on account of her training of Kishore Baliaka inthe year 1998-1999. Learned Single Judge considering that both of them belong to the same caste and same viiiage and that respondent No.8 passed Class-Vlli and obtained 74.2% marks, whereas the appeliant obtained 59.8% marks, held that her appointment as Anganbadi worker was just and proper and accordingly quashed the orders of Annexures P-10 and P-11 passed by the Additional Collector and the Director, Panchayat respectively. ^y^ ^^%^ ^ /tf .., " ' ^ ^ ^^^^-S^ ':h I! t ^J^^ '^^^ "^^y^^ 4 Priya 7. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show any factual infirmity in the impugned order and thus n& ground for interference is made out bythe appellant. 8. Accordingly, the appeal isdismissedatthe admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge