^T^ <^ ^ '^ ^.,h;J ;? ^^ c» IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION FS1 N0. /05&//2007 FS.B.1 PKTITIONER..<<; ^Smt. Kamla Bai widow of late Parasram, aged about 44 years, resident of village Kunwa, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham [C.G.]. ^ff R88PONDENTS 1] ^2] •WRSUS The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department oi Mahila Avam Bal Vikas Vibhag, C.G. Raipur. The Collector/Additional Collector, Kabirdham [C.G.]. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham [C.O.]. The Project Officer, Mahila Avam Bal Vikas, Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham [C.G.]. Smt. Shyania Bai wife of not know^ aged about 30 years, Resident of vllage- Kunwa, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham [C.G.]. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HISH COURT OF OMATTLSSAW AT KD.ASPUR WritPetition (5) No. 1038 of 2007 Petrttonw Smt. Kmnla Bai Versus Respondents The State of CNwttisgdrh Aothers Su^e Bench: HwiUe Mr. Justice Satish K. ^gnihatri. Present: Mr. M.K. BhaAiri, Advocate for Ihe petitioner. Ms. Sunito Join, Panel l.aNiyer for the State. OR&ER (PcBsed on 23"' Ony of Febninry. 2007) The following order of the Court was passed by Salfah K. AffaShwM, J. 1. Leumed counsel q)peoring for the petitioner siAwnH-s that the petitioner was duly seleeted as Aa^anbodi Sahayika vidc order dated 8-11-2006 (Amiexure P-l). The respondent No. 5, who IKOS obo o condidate for selection, challenglng Ihe appointment on the 9round that she is better (|u<i(ified and has preferential right. This aypointment should be given to her in preference to •t+ie petitioner. 2. It is odmitt'ed cose of the petitioner thaft' the petitioner is a cidow kdy and illiterot'e, the re^ondent hk>. 5 is u desa^ed lady and passed 5tl1 chss. The clouse 5 of •the Aoigonborii Workw Scheme cleorly provides 'thot the preference shoukl be given •t® (»idow/deserted hdies, rf both the candide*es are ndow/deserted then olher shouM be prefwred, aubject to ihe preference that a lady ahouM be miramum middle pass ond rf middle pass is not wailable then educuted or other 5*1' class p<Bsed. 3. In the present case, it cypeors 'tl'wt no tady having middte schoot pass NWS wmlAle, -thus the respondent No. 5, «yho is hwmg 5 clnss pass certificate wns ou^it to h<we given prefepence, occonBngly. The Additiond -B&^se^&^i^g Collector, Kdardham vide order dated 25-11-2006/27-12-2006 (Annexire P-2) cancelled ttie appointment of the petitioner ond directed to appoint Ihe rwqwndent No. 5. 4. I have heard teamcd counsel appcaring for the parties and perused the pleadmgs and records appcnded fhea-eto. It is evident that the r'espondent No. 5 has better preferentiol right being desert-ed and c\aes 5 exomination passed. The petitioner is also iiwdour, but is on illiterute. Thus, the order of the Additional Collector, Krffir'dharo is Just and proper, ond it does not Nfarrant any interference. 5. The iwit petition is dismisMd. No order as to cosls. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge StA>hash