C15: (1:) 7/” @ / IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA SPUR 07065 k W.P. (ART. 227) No. aw; oLzees‘v PETITIOAER // .' Smt. Parwatz' Sahu, W/o / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA" S a Ramesh Sahu, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Sukhataal, Tahsil—Kawardha, District— Kabirdham (C. G.) Qqhxyg VERSUS / :1. State of Chhatfisgarh, Through Secretary Department of Woman & I Child Welfare Department, D.K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) / 2. Smt. Kaushalya Sahu, D/o Shn' Jeetram Sahu, aged about 24 years, R/o Village~ (“SakhataaL / Tahsil Kawardha, District-Kabirdham (C. G.) \4 Cur/09 W200 b0 9. C227) N0- WW we:W (W> WWW mimm WumaW f€Q3xfEER éiwm SB: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE N.K. AGARWAL 1 5-6-2009 Shri Atul Pandey, Advc ycate, for the petitioner. a, Dy. Adv. General, for Shri A.S. Kachhawah: the State. Shri Sudhjr Verma, Ad v. for the respondent No. ‘cted against the order passed by the Director Pan ayat in Appeal Case No. 114/A89/08-09 dated 23-3 2009, whereby appeal of respondent No. 2/ Smt. Ka shalya Sahu was allowed and order dated 2742-200 passed by the Additional Collector, Kabirdham was s t aside. Heard learned counse for the parties. Brief facts of the case This petition is dire that respondent No. 2 Smt. Kaushalya Sahu was appointed as Anganbadi Worker by Janpad Pancha t, Kabeerdham with the approval of the Collector; filed objection/that respond nt No. 2 Smt. Kaushalya Sahu was not a resident of village Sukhatal and, therefore, was not entitl d to be appointed as Anganbadi Worker as per mania {grim mania—3&5 1 1 /200x~: ,oa,000. w: e £119 C2i’7) Nazqos/Qg mamW (15mg) T ”2* Wrw‘miw WW WW *wlfémwéw to time. The objection of the petitioner was allowed and the appointment of the respondent No. 2 was set aside by the Additional Collector vide order dated 27- 12-2006, which was challenged by respondent No. 2 before the Director Panchayat. The Director Panchayat vide order dated 23-3-2009 allowed the appeal of respondent No. 2/ Smt. Kaushalya Sahu by holding that Smt. Kaushalya Sahu was a resident village Sukhatal. order. I have perused The order passe by the Director Panchayat was based on resident in village Sukhatal fro student. Therefore, ’ cate dated 4-2-2006 and the revised voter list a also the mark sheet of Smt. Kaushalya Bai, which hows that her education was ClassotoSasaregular order passed by learned Director Panchayat is ased on cogent evidence and no illegality is/ committ d by the Director Panchayat - by passing the impugn d order. It is well settled p ' ciple of law that this Court, in exercise of its s alnrwg: Warm . wm'ania—Fs/sshu/zoos 1,00,090. tar 2&0 e record and the impugned rvisory jurisdiction under w? L117) No ZirDy/g W200 mww ’ammm WWW W3; ‘ WWW mm(W> WWW /3_ WW WW $3i§m311€w AItiCle 227 of the Co re&ain itself from interfe the Court below stitution of India, should g with the order passed by exce ‘1: in such cases where perversity, illegality or urisdictional error is writ large on the face of thef- present case.’ The petition being without substance, deserves to be dismissed and is e] record, which is not in the ?eby dismissed. ‘ /, r45 Sdl- N.K. Agrawal Judge h