^^''^^^s', /^^:. ~a\ /'/ " '' 8. RAi—^"A'ffi^% HiGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ¥- WRIT PETITiON (S) N0. 7402 OF 2006 Smt. Ranjana Gupta, wife of Sardhi Gupta, aged about 28 yeare, workmg as Mahila Shikshika, Shishu ShikshaKendra, Aurajor, Gram Panchayat Kesharchuwa, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through -the Secretary, Department of Mahila Avam BalVikas,Raipur(CG). 2. Th®Collector (Mahila Avam Bal \flkas Vibhag), Raigarh (CG). 3. The Chief Executwe Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Tamnar, District Raigarh 4. Smt. Uttara Bai, wife of Bisi Keshan Rathiya, aged about 21 years, Resident of Gram Aurajor, Gram Panchayat Aurajor, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG). ^A/rit petftion under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia) Smgle Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.K. Tulsyan, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. pRDERfORALi (Passed on is 23rd day ofJune, 2009) 1. By this petition, ttie petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 14-1 1-2006 (Annexure- P/4) passed by the Coltector QWomen and Child Development Department), Raigarh, wheraby the representation fited by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. According to the tearned counsel appearing for tha peBtioner the petitioner was appointed as Shikshika in Shishu Shiksha Kendra, Aurajor, by order dated 17-6-1995 (Annexure - P/1). The State Government took a decision to absorb the services of Shikshilca, who are woridng in the Shishu Shiksha Kendra in the vacant posts of Angabadi Karyakarta. By order dated 22-10-1995 (Annexure - P/2) the ser/ices of some Shikshikas' have been abswbed in the service of Anganbadi as Anganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika. The petitioner made an application and requested the respondent authortties to consider her case for absorption on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta on the ground that she is worklng as Shikshika since 1995 and having requisits qualiflcation, but the respondent ^' Gowri authorities appointed the respondent No.4 on ttie post of Anganbadi Karyakarta. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the respondents, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 17-10-2<X)6 (Annexure - P/3) before ihe Collector, Raigarh, which has been r^ected by order dated 14-11-2006 (Annexure - P/4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the fact that tts pstitioner is working as Shfkshilca since 1SS5 appoirrted the responcfent No.4, which is contrary to the instructions issued by the Govemment. Ttie i respondent No.4 has been appotnted onlv on the basis that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe category whereas there is no provision for reservation. The petitioner is Ih/ing in beicw the poverty iine famiiy and her name is in the voter !iA Per contra, teamedcounseSappearing for the State whtte supportirg the order passed &y the Colfector submits that the respondent No.4 has been appointed only after eonsidering her case in accordance with law. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documente appended thereto. From perusal of th® order dated 14-11-2006 passed by <he Coilector tt appeara Shat after receipt of the representation of the petitioner, report was called from Ifte Project Officer, Integrated Chief Development S&.'vice Project, Tsmnar, Raigarh, in which the Project Officer mentioned that th® respondent No.4 tselong to (i) ST category; (ii) Ih'ing below poverty line; (iii) ioca! resident; and (h/) in Panchayat preference list her name is at S.No.1 whereas the petitioner is also betow poverty tine and working as Shikshika in Shishu Shiksha Ksndra exceptthat there is no other qualification. So far as the educational qualificatton is concerned, both the petitioner and respondent No-4 are having qualification of 8 standard. According to the circuiar dated 6-1-2000 if tte qualification is same then the preference will t»given to SG/ST ' candidates. After considering the report, the Cottector rejectod Ifte representation of the petitioner and communicated the same to' the petitioner. The order passed by th6i Collector is just & proper and does not warrarrt anv interference of this Court. tn view of foregoing, the petition deserves to be and is aceordingiy dismissed. No order asto costs. _ _-—_„---- S(V- SatishK-Agnihotri Judge