® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,CJ.& HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANT (Petitioner) RESPONDENTS <-:..- Writ Appeal No.150 of 2008 Smt Shakun Bai, D/o Shri Ramlal, aged about 24 years, R/o Village - Charbhata, Tahsjl - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (CG) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Women and Child Deveiopment, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Director, Panchayat ChhattSsgarh Raipur (CG) 3. Collector, District - Kabirdham (CG) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sahaspur - Lohara, District - Kabirdham (CG) 5. Project Officer, Integrated Child Devetopment Project, Sahaspur - Lohara, District - Kabirdham (CG) 6. Gram Panchayat, Charbhatha, Through its Sarpanch, Block Sahaspur - Lohara, District Kabirdham Kabirdham, CG 7. Smt Lata Bai, W/o Shiv Kumar, R/o Village - Charbhatha, Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court {ADpeai to Division Bench) Act. 2006. Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appeliant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Government Advocate for the State / respondents No. 1 to 3. .^ ^Sa ^^ Judament (28th July, 2008) The foliowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2. Appellant - Smt. Shakun Bai has filecf this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 19-06-2008, passed in W.P.(S) No.3030/2008. 3. Appellant - Smt. Shakun Bai filed the writ petition for the foilowing reliefs:- "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pieased to call for entire records. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 07-05-08 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Case No. 306/B- 121/06-07. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems to be fit and proper of the case, may be allowed. 10.4 Cost of the petltion may also be given." 4. The petitioner, thus, in substance was seeking quashing of the order dated 07-05-2008, passed by respondent No.2 - Director, Panchayat Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Revision Case No. 306/B-121/ 06-07. 5. The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.7 - Smt. Lata Bai as Anganbadi Sahayika at Village Charbhata vide order dated 04-07-2006, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, 3 @ Janpad Panchayat, Sahaspur-Lohara by filing an appeal before the Collector, Kabirdham. 6. The Collector, Kabirdham vide order dated 17-05-2007 passed in Appeal No. 2-8-121/06-07 quashed the appointment of respondent No.7 - Smt. Lata Bai and directed the authorities to appoint the petitioner in her place. Respondent No.7 ~ Smt. Lata Bai challenged the above order passed by the Collector, Kabirdham by filing a Revision petition under Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995 before the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 7. The Revision Petition filed by respondent No.7 - Smt. Lata Bai was aliowed by the Director vide order dated 07-05-2008, whereby the order passed by the Collector was set aside and the appointment of respondent No.7 - Smt. Lata Bai as Anganbadj Sahayika was restored. 8. Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties did not find any ground for interference in the order passed by the Director and therefore, passed by the impugned order whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed. 9. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Revisional Authority and the learned Singie Judge have erred in not giving due weight to the Taiak Ikrarnama produced by the appeltant. 10. If the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sahaspur- Lohara and the Revisional Authority on the material avaiiable before ^ them found that respondent No.7 - Smt. Lata Bai was entitled to be appointed as Anganbadi Sahayika in preference to appellant - Smt. Shakun Bai, there was hardly any ground for the writ Court to interfere in the matter. We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere in the order passed by the Revislonal Authority. 11. As we do not find any ground warranting interference in this writ appeai, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge