<^t^7 INJlHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPMR W.P.fSlNO. ^V^ / 2011 PETITIONER VERSUS Mohar BaiW/o.Han Prasad, Aged about 36 years, R/0. Village — Abilaypur, Ward no. 12, Gram Panchayat KantaroU, TahsU - Preinnagar, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS -'^ ^^^ ^-y'^ >»<^ ^^^^ ^^<3py^' '^••^^y ^v A-" 1. <^tate bf Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Woinan and Child Develbpinent Departm.ent, DKS Bhawan, -^Raipur C.G.) 2. GoUector, Surguja, Distt. Surguja ^G-G.) 3.<^ Project OfHcer, Integrated ChUd Development Projeet PreKm.agar, Distt.Surguja(C.G.) 4. -^" Smt. Sarita Gupta w/o. late Ramkumar Gupta, R/d. Abhaypur, Gram Panchaya.t Kantaroli, Tahsil - Premnagar, Distt. Surguja (G.G.) WRTT PETFnON UNDER ARTICLE 226 GF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON fS) No. 1155 of2011 PETmONER RESPONDENTS MoharBai. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. v Amit WRIT PETITIONUNDER ART7CLE 226 OFTHE CONSTmjnONOE :INDIA ' ' ; ;/,.'' 8B: Hon'Ue Shrt Satish K. Aemhotri. J. Present: SlmVmodDeshmukh,Advocateappearingonbehalfof Shri P.K.Patel, Advocate forthe petitioner. Sfari Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ resspondent No. 1 to3. 0»BER(ORAL> (Passed on 03" day ofMarch, 2011) •^ 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by her non-selection on the post of Anganbadi worker for Anganbadi Gentre, Abhaypur, Patelpara, Tahsil Premnagar, District Surguja. 2. Under the provisions oflaw, Ifthe petitioner is aggrieved by her non-selection, the petitioner may approach to the Sub Divisional Officer, and thereafter, to the Additional Colleetor, if need be. Thus, this petition is not mamtainable for want of exhaustion pf statutory remedy as provided under clause 11 ofthe circular dated 02.04.2008 (Amiexure P/3) and farther, section 91 of the Clihattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with section 3 ofthe Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal & Revision) Rule/s, 1995. Further, there is nothing special in this matter which warrauts mtervention of fhis Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 oftheGonstitutionofIndia. 3. In view of the above, the writ petitionis dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to altemative statutory forum that may be. available to the petitioner, under fhe provisionsoflaw.ifsoadvised. ; i -Sdi- SatiShK.Agnih^ Judge r.ws':.--..:...~ a---.-wa.iwf'ssfsissssc^ "s Ji^^S^S ^S ^^^^^^^^