niysl <rfUUKi •HE W.P.i227) NQ.322Q;2009. F'E ""•"?'?"?as ,'»?^a.;,'?": ic?S I 1 1 aUi'^a^,' Smt. Hardevi, D/o Tejashwari Prasad, aged about 24 yeaers, R/o Viilage Musau Navagaon, Vitiage Psnchayat Si!ii, Mungeli, District ('C.G.) Tr.^>-i^ ^^.4a C^ f ^ isirict yiiaspur l?^r%i?:'s V ^=f 1 ^f ^A -^^ Smt. Beenabai, VV/o Noorsal, R/o Viltaae ?»'lusau Nsvagaon, Vsiiafle Pai Sll!i. iViungeii, DJstrictBiiaspur(C.G.) The Project Onicer, Women and •nilci u-svsiopn^snt uspsrtmSiEt; Janpad "ancnay District BiiasDur (!(C.G.) •"» hs Chief Executive Officer, Ti E ^ ^1^?^-^ Par mpad Uistnct yil&spur (C.C3, ""Itn^ fi sisVsiL mu!' ?"*ffl^i ^KTjCLE 227 OF TK t'*riMc.TiTi iTinM rie ^"('lt'=--''i'Ilf!,.^' B E E ^Nltt *. t'.'31E?;'-6 '•iatti-S: Shri iVi.K. Bhaduri, Counsel forthe petitioner. Snri A.S. Kschhwaha, Dy. AdvocaSe General forthe Stat ;i—-*.~ [i.S. ORA ©a^i.^VUs? rk'pr ISUEVEAR SiNHA J. Heard cn admission, Pstitioner -Smt. Hardevi was appointed as Aanganbadi viue ordei- dated 02.07.2007. Her appointment was chalienged by respsindent No.1 in a proceedlng before the Collector bearing N0.131/A-89 (15)/2007-08, The Coliector after hearing tne parties observed that It comes In the records of the Janpad Panchayat that petitioner Smt. Hardevi is the wife of a Shikshakat'mi and her reiatlve is ,aiso a panch of Gram Panchayat. He further observed that it comes W.R.?227) No.3220/2009 f'i ^~f ^^ 't F^t.L'"^^- ^^.-^i. F^t^? ^T^: ^-^ /^^ r 4'^,^'^ 1L^/'~lTE'^l /^^ <n»£*' LJ=F'^ /?-'^ ^;,^(&^-d?^^&^ / 1^^^ i''^ }^ y^.if^i^ T'^e^^f^'^^ ^y 3gsinst in©H8m©01 in@ psniioner insi prsssnuy SR8 iS noi rssioing iri fhs viHage as she has been mamed and has gone to viiiage Usiapur snd aiso that the certiflcate showing her a deserted tedy appears to be a forged certificate. With all these observations, the Collector set aside the appcintment of the petitioner and directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpacl panchayat, MungeSi to complete the process of appointment after foiiowing the ruies and scheme ete in ih!s regard. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Revision Case N0.240/A.89/07.08 before the Director (Panchayat). The Director (Panchayaf) also1 observed all these things and ultimately, dismissed the revislon, ccnfirming the order of remand passed hy the Collector. Admittedly, there is a scheme for appointment to She post or Aanganbsdi Vfior^er sho'wing quaiificatfons eto. The scheme also shows that how the appoinfments are to be made and who will be the eligible candidate for appointment. The scherne has been framed with a particuiar view. If the concemed authorities, after considering the provisions of the scheme and after obsen/'ing sorne defect in the appointmsnt rnade by the concerned Janpad Panchayat, found tnat the appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with !aw or it nesds reconsideration and have remanded the matter to the concerned authorities, that cannot be said to be bad in Eaw, warranting interference by this Court under Artlcle 227 of the Constituiion of india. The petition has no merit. The same is liable to be dismlssed and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage Itseif. It is made clear that any obssrvation made in this order wii! not come in the way of consideration of the candidature of the petitioner ^f^-a.%h h^/ thp rTinr:^n Jii i lutOi; > i«;' V -i i'S/ 4>/Wi s'i*/lfi i i&^il •ritles. Sd/- SunUKumarSinha Judge