-^.3....^^^.^...^.,^^.^^^...^ ^^ '5'^T T^i^i<n^ 'S^TH^, [®i<nw^< \^\©\ "'•^l 200 ^n^?T^^ (^Gsi^^?) /^J^T^-'^N? TOiW^I'iTO^ !1"IW. '^fTW^ftfl ^lt^T PETITIONBR RESPONDENTS 3. 4. 7. 8. 10. W.P.rs)N0.480F2009 Smt. Kh^l Kumad W/o Tularam Miri, aged about 25| years, R/o Village Sanakpat, Grain Paachayajb Saraiset, TahsU Paiidaiiya, Kawardh^, District Kabirdhain (CG) Velrsus 6, Project Developilaenf Kabirdh^tm Smt, De^ Gram. Kabirdh^in Smt. R£ R/o District- Smt. Village Kabirdh; ^^i^t^ T(W^ ^ l^^t 'rf^K^K ^^RPI 3:n^i State o^ Chhattisgarh, fhrough Secretaiy, Woman |and ChUd Developinent, Depaitinent Maiitral4ya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) DirectorJ Paucha^/'al Chhattisgarli District BUaspmj(CG) Coll€cto4, Kabirdham, District Kabmlham (CG) Chief Etcecutive Officer, Janpad Paachayat Pandari^a^ Presiden|t, Janpad | Paachayat, Kabirdh^m (CG) pfficer, Integrated Women aad ChUd Project Paadaiiya, Distdct- L(CG) Gram P^iichayat Saraiset Jaiipad Panchayat Pandari^a, fhrough its Secretary. Wom.en & Healfh Department Paadanya, District afaikali ;pa Shah, W/o Ghirji Ram Sahu, R/o Saraiset TahsU Paiidariya, District- (CG) Porte W/o Bah-aai Prasad Porte, Saakapat, Tahsil-Paiidadya, |Kabirdham (CG) lyabhama Sahu, W/o Ramji Sahu, R/o Saraiset TahsU-Paadariya, District ^m(CG) V|aiage ^I-H^ ^M^IS<^^ <M-li^8M—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. :,,-ri5?T%^ '/y^''% '%,. twe^-78 '3'^ -^WW^, ^tWT^, f^TRT^: NP<C?ST?0*fKt^ ^n^r^f f^i^ ^s?T 3?i^? si?*(i<^ •"^12&a:- 3^?T ^^p (yri^^f) ^RITW ^r^f 3?ii^ 11. Smt S R/o Kabird Writ Petition under Articl ^adta Bai W/o Krishna Kuniar SatoiiaBii, V^Ilage Sankapat, TahsU Paadariya District ^ham(CG) |e 226 ofthe Constitution ofladia S.B Hon'ble Sfari Dhirendra iffishra. J 09.01.2009:- Mr, I.S, Sahii, cozinselfo] Mr. Y.S. Thakur, leamed| By fhis petition, tiie ^j Aiiuexure P/1 datecl 4,10,2) Paa.chayat, whereby revision o| CoUector, has been further reje^ted. From. perusal of tlie rj Panchayat vide its resolutiou ^ TTR^ff '^F fe^ <1^1<^1< ^T^tfOT^H^T r fhe petitioner, -Dy, AG forfhe State/respondents. letitloner has impzigned fhe order of 306 passed ui revisioii by Director, f the petitioner again.st the order of the scord, it appears tih.at fhe conceraed iecided to recomniend fhe appouitment of respondent No.ll as Aaagajibadi Worker as she was 8dl Class pass aiid also belonged fo schedulpd caste category. The resolution was subsequently affirmed by C^rani Sabha of fhe said Paachayat, However, her appoiataient wa^ caaceUed by tiie Chief Executive. Officer aad m her place, Uie petitiorier was appoiated for the reasons fliat rcspoudent No.ll is 8th Class faU and her near relative is a Paach in tfie Grani Panchayat, The CoUfector aUowuig fhe revision ofrespondent No, 11, set aside fhe order ofti&e Chief Executive Ofiicer appouitmg fhe petitioner as Aaagaabadi Worker aad further dtrected him to reconsider flie appomtmieut, 4Ild m these circumstaaces, respondent No.ll was appoiated as Aad^gan.bai Worker by fhe. Chief Execntive ''•'^!^'^3' 3?I^i ^T "Rplf^ ^8T[ 3Tf^T 'sft^Jcti 'r ^ •3~5T '?ZH^R^T, ^ttl-H^Ko, f^<ytWy <n*R'ii%?wGf> l"^p<3^: -W^T ^^ (^N^^^) ^rfT^R ^^ ^R^I Officer, which has been siibsetiuentiy fliereafter, by tlie Director, Paacjhayat, From perusal of tiie respondent No, 11 is 8dl Class ui fhe said Grani Paachayat at[ the petitioner is only 7th pass. fhe considered opiaiou fh.at th| impugned order warrantmg mtejt lu tlie resiilt, the deserves to be disniissed at fh< clisniissed, ajjove p|iss tast^at ^i^!<n<il<i ^PT^f ^f fexsit <F3i4^E< ^^tfW3T?^T affiraied by fhe CoUector and , by fhe irnpugned order. orders, it is evident that flie aad none of her relative was Paiich the tiiae of her appoiatment, whereas fliis beiag tlie situation, this Court is of |ere is no iUegality or uifirmity in. the 1-fereuce, petition beiag wifliout substan.ee adniission stage itself aad is hereby, Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge