^^ o^ HtGH GOURT OF CHMATTISGARN: BILASPUR WritPetition (Sl No. 1977 of 2008 Petitioner Respondents Shyama Devi aged about 37 years, D/o. DHbar Singh, r/o. Village Sarbhoka, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Korea. Versus 1) The State of Chhattisgarh ttirough ite Secretary, Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2) The Director, Panchayat, Raipur. 3) Women and CWId Oevelopment ©fficer, Manendragarh, Korea. 4) Chief Executive CWicer, Janpad Panchayat Manendragarh, Korea. 5) Sarpanch Gram Panchaysrt, Sarbhdka, Tahsjl Manendragarh, Distt. Korea. 6) Archna Pal, Qfo. Shital Prasad, vtllage Sarbhoka, Distt. Korea. (Writ Petition under Artide 226/227 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bte Mr: Satish K. Agnihotri, J; Present: Shri Parag Kotecha. counsel for th@ peWoner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3^-2008) This petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Indtei impugns the order dated 19-2-2008 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereby the order dated 26-9-2CX37 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Additionat Collector, Manendragarh, District Korea, has been quashed and the appointment of the respondent No.6 has been found just and proper. 'a^ 2) Learned counsel appearing for ttie pel^oner sybmits that the petilaoner is a deserted lady and is living beiow the pov^ty line. The respondent No.6 has not been found deserted as her husband in a lettor dated 11-3-2008 (/^inexure P/2) addressed to the Collector, Baikunthpur, has mentioned that she is not deserted, though she is living separatety and getting a sum of Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance. Learned counsel further points out that her brother and father are working in South Eastem Coatfields Umited as Shiksha Karmis, thus, she cannot be treated as deserted or living b^ow the poverty line. 3) Be that as it may, on pemsal of the order dated 19-2-20^ (Annexure P/5), which Ss impugned herein, it is clear that tiie respondent No.6 was selected for appointment as Aaganwadi Karyakarta on the ground of her experience of work as Sahayak and a deserted lady. The workit^ of fettier and husband as Shiksha Karmis may not come in the way of appointment as the policy dated 28-1-1992 (Annexure P/3) does not prohlbit app@lntment of a lady on the ground that her relations are working else where and g^ting seme salary. The petitioner has failed to establish ttiat the respondent No.6 was not a deserted lady. 4) On perusal of the entire papers partculariy, letter of the husband, it appears to be a clear case where she appears to have been deserted by fie husband and he was paying Rs. 10X)/- as maintenance amount fw living separatety. The father and brother are aiso not helping tiie respondent No.6, even otherwise, this Court cannot go into the disputed findir^s of facts, which have already been examined by the Director, Pancha^it, Raipur There is no error apparent in the orcter, procedural or otherwtse and the order impi^ned herein is unexceptionable. 5) Accordingly, this petHJon is disriiissed summarily. g^. SatishKAgnihotri Judge fr<-