c>^ IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.,(S) N0. ^tlS^- OF 2009 PETITIONER Smt. JamvantiwYogendra Satnami,! W/o. Yogendra Satnami, aged about 26 years, R/o. Village - Manpur, Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) * RESPONDENTS y/// ^y _.;y N: 'y ..•" .^.^ ^/ ^'~" A<> YERSUS 1. State of? Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretaiy, Women and Child Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Panchayat, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Additional Collector, RaipurfC.G.) <<...-_ 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G:) 5. Project Officer, Women and Child Development Department, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) <^ 6. Ku. Kusum Anant, D/o. Shri Kalyan Das, R/o. Village - Manpur, Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260F TH_E CONSTITUTION QF •INDIA . - ' ":. 1. PARTICULARS OPTHE PETITIONER : Asshowninthecausetitle. i H. ,f 1!1 <;. HSGH GOURT OF CHHATTiSGARH ; BILASPUR l^TITi/" s—i i i !SN/i:ii6,,.r WRiT PET!T!ON (S) N0.6437 OF 2009 Smt. Jamvantin Yogendra Satnami Versus RESPONDENTS State ofChhatSisgarh & Ofhers 3. ^: 'rit petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of •Slngte Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel forthe pstitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Pane! Lawver for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 7"' day of November, 2009) 1. Wtth the consent of Isarned counsei appearing for the parties, the petition is heard fina!Sy. 2. By this petition, the petiiioner, seeks to chaiienge the legality and vaiidity ofthe order datsd 13-7-2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Director (Ranchayat), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in rsvision case No.205/A.89/08.09 wherebythe revision filed bythe petitioner has bs.sn rejected. The petitioner also seeks to chalienge the isgality arid vaiidity ofthe orderdated 20-1-2009 (Annexure- P/2) oasssd by the Additional GoSiector, BilcSpur, in case No.133/A-S9 (15).'2007-07 whsreby the appointment of ihe petitioner on the post of Anganbadl Karyakarta has been cancelied. The fact that the se facts, in nutshe!!, for adjudication of the case, are that petitloner a!ong with other candidatss apptied for the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta, In Gram Pahchayat Bhimpuri, iWanpur, Tahsii Mungeli, District Bilaspur. Accordingto the petltionsr after cohsidering the applicafions of ths candidates, the Gram Panchavat passed a resoiution in favour of the petitionsr. On the i^^.^'i&^SSSSSS&S&^^^^^^^ SS^:£Sssss!-*?r:•"*••:'"-'-?•':.~'-:' iS^.Si^Si®:^iifl 4. ^^ basis of r&soiuiion, the petitioner was. appointed on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta by order dated 20-9-2007. Against the said order, the respondent No.6 herein prsferred an appea! before the Additionai Coiiector. The same was dismissed bv order dated 13-5-2008 on the ground of non-joinder of necessary partiss. Being-aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the rsspondent No.6 preferred a revision before the Director (Panehayat). The Director (Panchayat) rsmanded back the'matter to She Additional Goilector 'A'ith a direction to decide ths case, in accordarice withtaw, after affording sn opportunity of hearihg to a!I the.parties.. Thsreafter, by order dated 20-1-2009, $he AdditiOBa! Coligctor, Biiaspur, canceiled the apRoiniment order passed in favour ofthe Detitioner and directed ths authorifiss concemBdto appointfHe Anganbadi rteryakarta, in accordance wsth ihe ruies. : Fseling aggrieved by ihe order dated 20-1-2009, the petifioner preferred a rsvi'sion before the Director (Panchayat), who by order dated 13-7-2009 djsmissed th®ravision fiied by the pefitionsr. Thus, fhjspeiition.i^";-l; !1 S .'.. Shri Deshmykh, isarned counsel appsaring for the petifioner, woul'd-submii that fhe appeai prefsrrec! bv the respondeht No.S vvas barred by limitation and, as such, the Addifi.onaj Coiiector ought to hav&dismissed thesame onthtsgrodhd atone. The name ofthe respondent No.6 is nof mentioned in the voter iist, therefore, she Is not entitied to appomtment on ihe post of Anganbadi Ksryakarta. Learned counsei wouid further submit that the case of the rsspondent No.6was nevsr recommendetf by the authbritiesconcemedforherappointment. . T- •^ 1*-^.^' J^ S have hsard icarned counsei appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended fhereto. The Direcior (Panchayat) in his order dated 13-7-2009 (Annexure P/1) vei'vspecificaiiv observed that in soite of avaiiabiiitv of candidate ha'/ing qualification of 8 class, the Gram Panchayat passed the resplution in favour of the pstitioner, who is having qualificaiion of 10"'ciass, whteh is contrary to the provisions ofthe scheme. Ths names of ths famiiy members of the respondent No.6 are msntioned in the voter !ist and from the same it can be found that the respondsnt No.S is aiso the residerit of same Gram Panchsyat. Non-inciusion of the nams of the respondent No.6 in the voier iist does not mean that the respondent No.6 is not the resident of ihe sa'id viilage and, as such, cannot be considered for appointment on the post ofAnganbadi Karyaksrta. Thus, ihe order^ passed by the Director (Panchayat) and the Additionai Coilector are just, proper and do not warrant any interference of thss Court. The cohteniion of ths petitioner that the issue of limitation was not consldered by the Additional Collector aj^d further the fact that the father of the responderit No.6 was a member of Pani Panchayat. On perusai, !t Is found that the Question of Simitation was considered by the Additlonal Coiiector and it was observed that since the matter was remanded back for consideration, the objection with regard to iats fiiing of the application wouid not be reievant. in respect of the fact that the father of the respondent No.S was a member of Pani Panchayat, being a member of Pani Panchavat does not come in the wav of consideration of lli! ^s^^s^ rsspondent No.8 for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Kary'akarta, as ths restriction is that any rslstion shoula' nof bs either member of the said Panchayat or a Gpvernment employee. Pani Panchayat is a different concept altogether different from the eiected Villags Panchayat. Thus; both the contentions raised by the petitioner are rejecfed. !n vtew of foreaoina and forthe reasons mentionsd hereinabove, the writ petition being devoid stage itself. of merit is dismissed at the motion Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge ^s^