t^^">i" -tffS--^" IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S)NO. \Vl,0 'i~ / 72011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS y I. Smt. In(}firm.uru, W/o. Madhusudan, Aged aboUt 42 years, R/JO. ViUage - Bakalo, Graaaa Panehayat Bakalo, TahsU - H-eninagar, Disft. Surguja (C.GF.I State ofChhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Woinan and Child Developnient Department, DKS Bhawan, RaipurC.G.) :y. :.1 ..• -.' - 1. : .. 2. CoUector, Surguja, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3.'^ Project Officer, Integrated ChUd Development Project Premnagar, Ristt, Surguja (C.G.) 4. Ky. Simita D/o. Shivdhaii Singh, R/o.. Village Bakalo, DiBnarpal, Tahsil- Preninagar, Distt. Surguja :(C.G.) 1;.,: : : ; ', • . ,• WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURTOE CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 1160 of2011 PETmONER RE8PONDENTS Smt.Indannuni. VERSU8 State of'Chhattisgarh&Others. Arnit WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA .— SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Present: . ShriVmodDeshmukh.Advocateappearingoribehalfof Shri P.K.Patel, Advocate forthepetitioner. Shri Y.S.'Iliakur, Deputy Advocate Qeneral fortheState/ resspondent No. 1 to 3. ORDER{ORAL) (Passed on 03r<t day ofMarch, 2011) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by her non-selection on the post of Anganbadi worker for Anganbadi Ceutre, Dumarpali, Bakalo, Tahsil Premnagar, District Surguja. 2. Under the provisions oflaw, if the petitianer is aggrieved by her non-selection, the petitioner may approach to the Sub Divisional QflGcer, and thereafter, to the Additional Collector, if need be. Thus, this petition is not mamtainable for want ofexhaustion of statutory remedy as provided under clause 11 ofthe circular dated -02.04.2008 (Annexure P/3) and further, section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with section 3 ofthe Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal & Revision) Rule/s,1995. Furtfaer, tfaere is nothing special in this matter which watTants intervention of this Court in exercise of its power under Artiele 226 ofthe Constftution oflndia. 3. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to altemative statutory forum that may be available to the petitioner, under fhe provisions oflaw, ifso advised. Satts^^ judge iboW