,73/ HIGH COURT OF CH HATTlsGH AT iBiLASPUR (Hon. Mr. JusticePritinker Diwakar) WRIT PETITION (227) No. 971 of 2009 PETITIONERS: (Respondent) Smt. Tapeshwari Bai, wife of Vinod Kumar Suryawanshi, aged about 33 years, Residence of viilage - Budena, Jan. Panehayat,- Navagarh, District — Janjgir- Champa, (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1 . Sta f Chttisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat Social~ lfare Deparent D.K.S. hawa, Raipur, htisgar. irector, Pancaya an Soct elfar, Raipur, Chhattisgar dditional llector, istrict — anjgir—Ca, Cttisgarh. f e a m, Chga Distric Won a hild Development ficer, Janjgir- Capa, District Janir—Champa, Chhattgarh ni s ukmi Bai a Chie Executiv omcer, Jnpad— nchayat, vagarh, Distric Pa Na t Janjgir—Chapa hattisrh. :Smt. Rukma Bai, alia Rn , daughter of Dhnnuram Suryavanshi, residenCe of village- Budena, Jan.Panchayat—Navagarh, Tahsil-Navagarh, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh Mr. S.N. Nande counsel for the. petitioner; Mr. Satish Gupta, Deputy Govt. Advocate for ‘ l‘ respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava respondent No.4. Mr.“ Bharat Rajput coUnset for respondent No.6. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA counsel for RESPON DENTS te o ha and We tm, Bn Chath D ht d al We h A Co D Jhamp hha t ma nd C Of hm jg is ORDER (23.04.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. By the present petition the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 13.1 .2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Director, Panchayat, in Appeal No. 4381A- 89(15)IO6—07 allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.6 Smt. .Rukmani Bai alias Rukmin Bai med against the order dated 5.4.2007(Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir Champa. 2. Facts of the case in nut shell are that Gram Panchayat, Budena, invited applications for the post of Anganwadi worker and in response thereto five applications including that of the petitioner ' herein and the respondent No.6 were received by it. After receiving the applications, in its meeting convened on 6.2.2006, a resolution (Annexure R-1) was passed giving the details of the candidates regarding appointmerit of “the Anganwadi workers. Thereafter, permanent committee of Health, Woman, and Child Deveopment Department (Project Officer) scrutinized the applications of all the five 1 candidates and prepared a comparative merit chart vide (annexure R— 2). The said chart was prepared in presence of the candidates and, was duly signed by the petitioner and the respondent No.6. Permanent Committee after taking into consideration the directions regarding appointment of Anganwadivworkers recommended the name of respondent No.6 for being appointed as Anganwadi worker ._g, in Gram Panchayat, Budena. Pursuant to the recommendation and selection, on 30.5.2006, respondent No.6 was appointed as Anganwadi worker’and her name is shown at S.No. 27 of said order (Annexure R/6-2). immediately after receiving the appointment order, respondent No.6 joined on the said post. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.2006 so far as it relates to the appointment of respondent No.6, the petitioner challenged the same before the Additional Collector who by order dated 5.4.2007 (Annexure P—2) allowed her application and directed for appointment of the petitioner in place of respondent No.6. The said order of Additional Collector, was challenged by respondent No.6 before the Director; Panchayat by way of appeal who in turn allowedthe same and set aside the order dated 5.4.2007 passed by v the Additional Collector. it is this order of Director, Panchayat, which is under challenge in this petition. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the order impugned. 5. Counsel for the/petitioner submits that the appointment of \ respondent No.6 as Anganwadi worker is illegal. and the petitioner being equally qualified is entitled to be appointed on the said post. He further submits that as per the circular dated 2.4.2008 (Annexure P- 6), petitioner being more meritorious than respondent No.6 is entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi worker. He drew the attention of this i Court to point No. 1.10 of the said circular which describes as to how the evaluation would be clone and how the certificates submitted by ‘ p pq,‘ ‘ the candidates would be scrutinized. He submits that certificates issued in favour of respondent No.6 showing her to be a deserted woman is not the correct document as the same has been produced by her just to secure the post of Anganwadi worker. According to him, even the petitioner is living below the poverty iine though this fact was not disciosed by her at the time of filling—in the application form. Other contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.6 being related to one Gyatri Bai, Panch of Gram Panchayat, Budena, is not entitled to beappointed as Anganwadi worker in the said Gram Panchayat as per the circular dated 6.1.2000 (Annexure R-3). However, counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that this point was never raised before the V Additional Collector or the Director, Panchayat and it is being raised for the nrst time before this Court. 6. Supporting the order impugned passed by the Director, Panchayat, icounsei for the respondents submits that the order impugned is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality in the same. They drew the attention of this Court to various documents -, filed by them along with their return. 7. Counsel appearing for the respondentsf State submits that as‘ per the circular dated 06.01.2000 (Annexure-Rl3) a direction has‘ been issued by the State Government to the effect that first preference would be given to those female candidates who are widow/deserted and then to those female candidates who are living , below the poverty line and then to the female candidates belonging to l the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. According to the State l Counsel in her application form, the petitioner has categorically stated ,i. l that she is not living beiow the poverty Hne nor she is widow or a deserted woman. On the contrary in her application form respondent No.6 has categorically mentioned that she is a deserted woman and living below poverty line. r8. Based on the comparative chart of all the candidates, applications and documents submitted by them, merit list was prepared and, therefore, the authorities were fully justified in giving appointment to respondent No.6 on the post of Aanganwadi Worker. it has been submitted by the respondents that there is no illegality or perversity in the order impugned as the same has been passed after taking into consideration all the points in detail. 9. Admittedly, at the point of filling in the form, the petitioner did not disclose as to whether she is living below the poverty line whereas respondent No. 6 has given the detail in the prescribed coloumn and she has categoricaiiy submitted that she’is living below the poverty line. Furthermore, respondent No.6 has filed relevant documents showing that she is a deserted lady. The scrutinizing {meme committee, after consid/eringthedirections of the State Govemment g vide Annexure-R-3 in respect of appointment of Aanganwadi Workers has drawn the comparative merit list and based: on that the appointments have been made. v 10. The matter relating to recruitmentof Anganwadi Workersis not 3 governed by any statute. Recmitrnents are made pursuant to al‘ Scheme framed by the Central Government. The State, therefore, while making recruitments in such projects in exercise of its jurisdiction. under Article 162 of the Constitution of lndia, may issue )56 such guideiines and / or circulars as it may s5$em fit andwoperihe said guidelines are ordinarily binding on all the functionaries wcrking in terms cfethe ‘scheme’ including the Selection Committees constituted for recruitment of Anganwadi Worker. 11. Contention ofethe counsel for the petitioner that the directions issued by the State Government on 2.4.2008 (Annexure P-6) have not . been considered has no force for the reason that the appointments were made much prior to the issuance of such- directions. His other contention that the petitioner is more meritorious than the respondent No.6 cannot be accepted because the respondent No.6 is admittedly a deserted woman and she is living belowthe poverty line. lf at the subsequent stage the petitioner has submitted certain document showing that she too is living below povery line cannot be accepted because at the time of submission of application forms, selection process etc. admittedly she had not eve disclosed any such fact. Thus the appointing authority was fully . justified in giving appointment to respondent No.6 on the post of ‘ Anganwadiworker. Yet/anotheracontention of the counsel for the 1 petitioner that the petitioner is the relative of one Gyatri Bai —- Panch of Gram Panchayat, Budenagcannot be accepted because this point i was never raised either before the Additional Collector or the Director, Panchayat, Moreover, the alleged certihcate showing relation of the petitioner with said "Gyatri Bai, Panch of Gram Panchayat, Budena, was issued on 20.12.2008 i.e. much after the appointment of respondent No.6 as Anganwadi worker. Even otherwise, this contention of the petitioner and the validity of the said ._7A certificate cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its ‘ supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia because the petitioner has 'faiied to point out any perversity or arbitrariness in the order impugned. 12. On the basis of the submiSSions of the parties and the documents tiled by them it is clear that while making the selection, the respondent No.4 has followed the circular and the guidelines issued by the State Government and there was no infirmity in the selection of respondent No.6. 13. ln the light of the aforesaid analysis, this ‘Court is of the considered’opinion that the order impugned passed by the Director, Panchayat, is well founded and therefore, not liable to be dislodged. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. _1 2. No order as to cost. , sci/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ”M