^ G^? ) ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (Sl No. G3 /2010_(S.B.l PETITIONER /Smt. Rambai Sahu W/o Ramsay Sahu, Aged about 32 Years, Resident of Village Bodsara, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. ^ ^ ^ ^•" .^^ 9^' '^- ^^::^.. .-•%'^@^""" ^*3' <^.l-"'' 2.' 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary, Depari:ment of Women and Child Development, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Director Panchayat, Directorate Panchayat and Social Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) The Additional Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Navagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Smt. Rudrani Devi, W/o Deepak Kumar, R/o Village Bodsara, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G) WRIT PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT. ORDERS OR DIRECTION. 4. ^ 5. ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition fS) No. 69 of2010 Petitioner Snit Rambai Saliu Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITU_TION QF INDIA. (SB: HonTole Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri V. Vijay, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri P. K, Bhaduri, Pa^iel Lswyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3. O R D E R (oral) (Passed on tliis 8U1 day ofJaiiuai^^ 2010) Heard. The petitioner, by this petition, impizgns fhe order clated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P/5j, passed by tlie Director, Paiichayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur m Revision Case No. 214/A.89/08-09, whereby fhe revision llled by the petitioner agamst the order dated 7.1.2009 (Annexure P/4), passed by tlie Additional Collector, Janjgir Cham.pa/has been disinissed. Brief facts, io. nutsheU.arethat.by order dated 30.5.2006 (Axinexure P/l), the petitioner (Snit Rambai Saliu) was appoiated as Angaabadi Worker ni Anganbadi center, viUage - Bodsai'a, District Janjgir Chaiapa and she joiaed her duties. Thereafter, tlie respondent No.5 (Siat Riidraai De\d), beiiig aggrieved by fhe appoiQ.tment of fhe petitioner, filed mi appeal, beiag Appeal Case No. 06/A 89 (15)/07-08 before the Additional CoUector, Jaxijgir Champa on the ground that fhe petitioner was aii elected Paiich from fh.e ward No. 11, she had actively participated ni fhe selection procedure, undertaken for the post of Angaabadi Worker aiid she tendered her resignation from tlie post of Panch on 31.5.2006 Le. after her appoiatment As per the % ^5"^3^^y 5. ^ itistructioas of tlie Goverainent on flie subject, th.e respondent No,5/appellant was fully qualified aiid eUgible. Oue Dhiraxi Bai had i&ade a complaiiit agaio.st the appouititient of fhe petitioner on fhe post of Angaiibadi Worker, whereto. the Project Officer, Integrated ChUd Development, Navagarh, Jaajgir had submitted the enquiry report agamst the petitioner. The Additional CoUector, havtag examuied the inatter iii detail, allowed ftie appeal filed by fhe respondent No,5, by order dated 7.1.2009 (Annexure P/4), holdio.g fliat fhe appoiiitinent of the petitioner was not i£i accordaace with law. The petitioner, being Panch of tlie Gram Paachayat was not entifled for appoiatment oii the post of Angaiibadi Worker. She had tendercd her resignation from. tlie post of Panch on 6.2.2006 aad her resignation was accepted on 31.5.2006, whereas her appoiatoaieut order was issued on 30.5.2006 i.e. before tlie date of acceptaiice of her resignatiou. These facts also get suppoil froni ttie enqiiiry report submitted by fhe Project Officer, Navagarh. Beiag aggrieved by tiie order dated 7,1.2009, tlie petitioner fUed a revision, which was disinissed by ftie Du'ector, Panchayat, Chhatdsgarh, Raipurby order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P/5). The niaiii plaiik of argunient of leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner is tliat the appeal before tlie Additional CoUector, Jaojgtr Champa, filed by the respondent No.5, was baiTed by lioiitation and the appellant had eveu not filed aa appUcation for condonation ofdelay. I have heard leamed counsel appearmg for tfie parties aad perased the docunients appended thex'eto, ^ Amit 7. It is evident from the order dated 25.11.2009, passed by flie Director, Paachayat fhat fhe raaiii objection of fhe petitioner ia the revision was also fhat tlie appeal was barred by tiniitation aad no appUcatioxi for condonation of delay was filed. The Dn'ector/ Paiichayat has dealt ftie poiat ia detail. It was found tliat the appUcatiou for condonation of delay iii filuig fhe appeal was filed before the Additional CoUector, explaiaiiig fhe reasons for delay. That appUcation was aUowed aad fhe delay was condoned. It was held by tlie Director, Paiichayat fhat fhe appoiataient of the petitioner was contrary to the existmg io.structions for appointinent of Angaabadi Workers, dated 6th Januaiy, 2000. 8, On perusal oftlie papers I have foiuid that fhe aufhonties below have exammed the matter m detall aad have passed fhe reasoned order after issuuig notice, suninioniag fhe records aad affoixliag opportunity of heariiig to the parties. I have found no uTegularity, Ulegality or jurisdictional error ia fhe rmpugned order. 9. It is weU-nigh estabUshed tiiat tMs Court hi exercise of its supen^isory jurisdiction should refrain itsetf froni uiterfering with tiie order passed by the Courts below, except ia such cases where pexversity, illegality, irregulaiity or jurisdictional eiTor is writ large on the face of fhe record, which is not ia fh.e preseut case. 10. In view of tlie above, this writ petition has no ment, it is accorduigly dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge