(‘1’? l ioi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR n WritAppeal .....31. 323. ..... M2008 mu .L six 1:.mgfé? APPELLANT - /Srmt. Triveni Bai Navrang W/o (PETITIONER) / Shri Ram Prasad Navrang, aged about 26 years, Caste Satnami, R/o Village Kusmuli, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus J» / State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Woman and Child Development, Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Panchayat Chhattisgarh District Bilaspur (C.G.) Collector, Bilaspur Bilaspur (C.G.) ChiefExecutive Officer, § ' Janpad Panchayat Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Woman and Child Development Officer,» Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) President, Health Department Janpad Panchayat, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7. I/Smt. Panch Bai W/o Mohan Lal, 'aged about 36 years, R/o Village Kusmuli, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.)’ RESPONDENTS ,RESPONDENTS) ?""7(* w” WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 11! OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISIONAL BENCH! ACT 2006 HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR N W. A. No. 232 of 2008 Appellant Smt. Tn'veni Bai Navrang Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8t, othsrs ELIGH WRIT APPEAL COURT (APPEAL UNDER SECTON To DIVISION 2 1 OF BENCHLACI THE CHHA’mSGARH 2006 DB; Hon’ble Mr. I. M. Quddusi, 65 Hon’ble Mr. Prashant Kuma: Mishra, JJ. Shn' Indra Sal Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. Ms Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No, '1 to 3 8a 5. Shri K. Kalamkar, Advocate for the respondent No.7. O R D E R §ora1i ( Passed on this 29th day of March, 2010) 1. This wn't appeal has been med against the judgment and older dated 18.9.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5220/2008 (Smt. Tn'veni Bai Navrang Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8a others) . 2. At the vely out set it is necessaly to mention that the writ appellant participated in the selection process of the Anganbadi Worker. A recommendation was made by the Gram Panchayat on the basis of the marks obtained in Class - 8m as well as the eligibility regarding that the candidate was below the poverty line. The respondent No.7 was selected as she was having 57% marks in Class—8th and was below the poverty line and she was also having two years experience ofworldng in Sub — Anganbadi Center. 3. With regard to the instant writ appellant Smt. Tliveni Bai Navrang, her name was not in the electoral roll, she was having 43% marks ‘ 2 (f5 in Class—8‘11 as well as she was not below poverty line and she was above the poverty line, thus she was declared ineligible. This is not disputed that the husband of the respondent No.7 was Panch but he tendered his resignation on 28.2.2006. Under the Rules/guidelines there was restriction that no person could be appointed as Anganbadi Worker, whose near relah'ves are odice bearer in the same Gram'Panchayat. The respondent No.7 was given the appointment in the month of September 2006. In the selection process also the husband of the peu'tioner did not participate, in making the recommendations for consideration of candidate for appointment as Anganbadi Worker. The husband of the petitioner, who was a Panch, was not present in the meetings of the Gram Panchayat with regard to the recommendation for~ appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker as he had already tendered his resignation on 28.2.2006. Sub rule (6) of Rule 4 (Part ~II, Resignation of Panch or Member) of the Chhattisgarh Panohayat (Resignation by Office Bearer) Rules, 1995 provides that if the member who has submitted his resignation, does not attend the meting called for considering his resignation after valid service of the notice on him and without sufhcient reasons, his resignation shall be deemed to have been accepted after termination of such meeting and he shall cease to be a member of the panchayat. If any member does not attend the meeting due to sumcient reasons his resignation shall be considered in the next meeting of the Panchayat. It is not disputed that after tendering the resignation the husband of the respondent No.7 did not attend the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, even if there is nothing on record that ;I d/af. whether the resignation was accepted or not but by Virtue of the statutory provisions the rosignation of the husband of the respondont No.7 was deemed to have been accepted. 7. We .have perused the records also by which we found that the respondent No.7 whose name was hnalized by the selection committee was having highest marks in Class-8th and she was below the poverty line and also having two years experience of working in Sub ~Anganbadi Center and no one was in the list having the similar percentage of marks and other experience. 8. Considering all the aspects of the matter, we have not found any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We may add further that the Writ appellant, who was petitioner before learned Single Judge, was found above the poverty line and was declared ineligible and the writ petition was tiled by an ineligible person, the same Was not even maintainable. Any how, we upheld the impugned judgment and order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5220/ 2008. No order as to costs. Sd/— ' " \ I.M.Quddusi Si Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra - Judge W i