XI-HC—78 -Lil'-:"1^, ©'li'y'*.f'.<M!.!-4.f ST'??I'q=ra?('q^H^( ''—'—;• !y" '"^"TT?^ ? 'E?| ;^»7!•»?sf5- j ff'TlW VW S?V '^^f^T^P^'^fe^ ^stRnsn^; HIGH COURT orcti Coram: Appellant Petitioner Respondents. HA 1 I ISCARH-STBItiatSPttR- Hon' ble 9hri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon' ble $hri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ WritADprial No. 153 of 2009 Vs.| 1)1 21 3J 4) 5) 6) Shrimati kaushalaya Sahu, aged 33 years, w/o. Tukaram Sahu, Anganbadi Karyakarta, r/o. Jewara, Tehsil & District Durg (CG). Smt. Homeshwari, aged 32 years, widow of late Indeshwar Sahu, r/o. Jewera, Tehsil & District Durg (CG). Ku. GayatriAnkalu Sahu, resident of Jewera, Tehsil & District -Durg (CG). Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jewara Sirsa, Tehsil & District Durg (CG). Sachiva, Gram Panchayat Jewera Sirsa, Tehsil & District Durg (CG). Ekikrit Gramin Bal Vikas Adhikari, Bunar Sangh, Durg (CG). Chhattisgarh State, through Collector, Durg (CG). (Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006). Present: Shri R.K. Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No,6/State. ^wim^, gyfeiii .itsy".""'9'-, ;^'';f'"<6 ' \- kw^ Xi-HC—78 '3'S? -*li'-:"iti. ^T1W!S, !• ry T^ :TCT[ ,»i;!j* 1 5?y?5i w^'^i { ^ V WP' 'fT'' ^qrBpfrfwwff •<r fpa Tf3n?R ^sffinsR^t ral Order (Passed on this 24th July, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J. Heard on admission. This writ appeal is direc the revision of the appellant ed against the order dated 11-5-2009 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. ^217 of 2009, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed at the thresfiold against the order dated 5-11-2008 passed by the Director Panch^iyat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Revision Case No.108/A-89/07-08, wher^by the Director, Panchayat dismissing herein, confirmed the order of the Collector and set aside the apppintment of the petitioner as Anganbadi worker. i Shri R.K. Kesharwani, ] learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Director, Panchayat had dismissed the revision of the petitioner only on the ground that the father of the petitioner is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant and as such he is an Government servant. The employees of Bhilai Steel Plant are not government servants as is held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1854). We have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and perused the order ofthe learned singte Judge. From perusal of the order of the learned single Judge, we find thatapart from the petitioner, other candidate who was widow had also <ff>fy^v*Al";T»wli^'ru '^^''p.C—lf, -^ l^ ^Sf •a4iu;"{<i, Bfli^i'!S. T3?!R:ri{T sffBsr'o^; ( •t;I S-W ys?i3- 1 WiW. ^fE.'"' 5!'Wi -^- •^FiRpft;r'iwi?if'?fsla:(fsII?R ^•^Rna^i -dppliyU—forthe post ot Angarjbadi worker. However, the authorities below considering the rules, rd^ulations and guidelines issued by the State Government from time to lime have held that the petitioner as well as the other candidate both w^re not eligible for appointment on the post of Anganbadi worker. L^arned single Judge of this court has dismissed the writ petition with (he following observation. "It is well-nigh estabfished that this court in exercise of its supervisory j|urisdiction should refrain itself from interfering withj below, except in illegality, irregularityj large on the face ofj present case." the order passed by the courts iuch cases where perversity, or jurisdictional error is writ the record, which is not in the We do not find any infirr^ity or illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge warranfjing interference in writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissbd accordingly at motion stage itself. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Raju Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Dhirendra Mishra Judge