^g^sf^r? ^ ^ 1 ;^ ^ ^.^ L. is^n e^^- :^.... t-'?; ^ c^ '^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. ^ g <^^ /2010 (S.B.l PETITIONER ( N. ft . ^Q.-I^) RESPONDENTS .....^ ^/ ^w oTAf ^w ^ Smt. Padma W/o Hoskumar Mali, aged about 30 years, R/o Village- Budbuda, Tahsil- Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. 2. 3. ft. 4. n..- / 5. 6. Commissioner Bilsapur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) The Additional Collector, Raigarh, Distt. Riagarh (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Smt. Sumitra W/o Radheshyam Pobiya, R/o Village Budbuda, Tashil- Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) -^^.V-A<-UV') Smt. Usha Bai, D/o Amar Singh, W/o Ashok Kumar, R/o Village Budbuda, Tahsil- Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Smt. Jeetesini Bai, W/o Ramkrishna, R/o Village ^ L- ^? -rl; / Bheekhampura, Tahsil- Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) /r7. Smt. Gayatri, W/o Ramesh Kumar Mali, R/o Village Bubuda, Tahsil- Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 8. Smt. Meera @ Uma, W/o Shivkumar Rawt, R/o Village Bubuda, Tahsil- Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 9. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Panchayat and Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^4ftts ^y^^ ^s^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT (Sl N0. 285S OF 201Q PetltlGner Versus Respondents Smt. Padma Commlssioner, Bilaspur Dlvision & Others WRIT PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF !NDiA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotrl, J.) Present:- Shri Manoj Jaiswai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents No.1, 2 & 9. Shri N.N. Roy, Advocate for the respondent No.4. None appears for respondent No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8, despite service of notice. (ORAU (Passed on 12th day ofJanuary, 2011) 1. By this petition; the petltioner impugns the order dated 21.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissloner, Biiaspur Division, Bilaspur, in Revision Case No.36/A-89/2009-10 (Smt. Sumitra v. Smt. Padma & OthersL v*/hereby, the Commissioner disagreeing with the observation and direction of the Additiona! Coiiector in order dated 2.3.2009 to appoint the petitioner as Anganbadi worker, heid that finding of the Additionai Collector was not correct. There shouid have a proper enquiry and thereafter a consequentiai order of appolntment of the petltioner, would have been passed. Accordingly, the Commissioner directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baramkeia to consider al! the applications fiied by the candidates for appointment on the post of Anganbadi worker In Anganbadi Center- Budbuda, a fresh within a period of one month. I.T*IJ \3^ "--^ The petitioner has chalienged the order on the ground that the order of the Additionai Coiiector, which was under.chaiienge. before the Commissioner was just and proper. Once It has been found that the appointment of the respondent No.5 was bad, there was no other alternative but to appoint the petitioner as Anganbadi worker. Shri Bhaduri, iearned counsei appearing for the State and Shri Roy, tearned counse! appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that Jnfact the petjtloner was never appolnted as Anganbadi worker, however, the Additlonal Collector on finding the appointment of respondent No.5 as iiiegai on the basis of forged documents, canceied the appointment of respondent No.5; as Anganbadi worker. He directed to appoint the petitioner as Anganbadi workerv^ithout considering the case of other appiicants. The order impugned before the Commissioner was not just and proper. The Commissioner has rightiy come to the conciuslon that the facts of forgery must have been examined carefully, not on the basis of inference or presumption, drawn by the Additional Coliector. i have examined the pieadings and documents appended thereto and have considered the submissions advance by the iearned counse! for the parties. There is no dispute that the petitioner, who was never appointed as Anganbadi worker, was directed to be appointed by the Additional Coliector without considering al! the reievant facts, particulariy of other appiicants also. This is the factua! dispute which the Commissioner has rightiy decided that the case of a!l the applicants be consldered afresh for appointment ofAnganbadi worker. i do not find any procedurai irregularities, illegality or perversity in the order impugned hereln. ..^^^^ ,^:^^ V'.:.'S^M '-<..-.. "^'""..^ sshok 3 it Is a trite law that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction for issue ofwrit ofcertiorari or supervlsory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of indla, wouid not convert itself into a court of appeal and Indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formai or technica! character. in the case on hand, no jurisdictlonai error, Infirmity or irregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Artlcie 226 and 227 of the Const'tution of india, is not incllned to interfere with the impugned order which is iegal, just and proper. (See Abdu! Razak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagie & Others1 and Shalin! Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil2. Applying the well settled principies of iaw to the facts of the case. no Interference is warranted. Thus, the petition is meritiess and is d'ismissed. No order asto costs. , Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1-2010 A!RSCW 1414 2 (2010)83cc 329