^- ^ S^SIE ssi IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH') WRIT PETITION fSt N0. @ &5 OF 2007 PETITIONER ,<? r\ 5^ /'.«y. ./^' .•••" A- Smt. Shivmati Wife of Shri Umashankar, aged about 23 years, Caste Gond, Resident of Village Dabgadi (Barbaspur) Village Panchayat Barbaspur, Janpad Panchayat Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : <^" ^ ^ /' State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The District Programme Officer, Woman and Child Development, Ambikapur,. District Surguja (C.G.). The Project Officer, Women and Child Development, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pratappur, District Surguja 9C.G.). (^ft. Village Panchayat Barbaspur, Through : The Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Barbaspur, Janpad Panchayat Pratappur, District . Surguja (C.G.). ,~1. Smt. Koshilya Wife of Kanshraj, Resident of Barbaspur, Village Panchayat Barbaspur, Janpad Panchayat Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION ETC. .fc- HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUB SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. ASNIHOTRI. J. WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.796 OF 2007 Petitidner : Smt.Kaleshwari vereus Respondents : StateofChhatUsgarh and others 1 WRITPETITK)N(S.IN0.7970F2007 1 • • ' • • . • . . • ' .'.•.' ' . '' Petitioner : Smt.Gulapati yersys Respondsnte StateofChhattisgarh andothers WRIT PETITION fS.)N0.799 OF 2007 (• - ' • . ' ' " .'''•'•.' .,'"'. • ' ' ii i •' . ' ,..'..'.' • • '.•^•: •• •.. Petftioner : Smt.Urmila ' versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and othere 1 WRITPETmON (S.IN0.8000F 2007 Petitioner : Smt.KiranDevi versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarhand others WRITPETITION (S.1N0.801 OF 2007 Petitioner : Snlt.Sheela Bai ! • ; . ' " . ••'••.. ' .' . . versus 1 ' '•• . • . • • . •.'.'. •••...••' Respondents : SterteofChhattisgarhandothere Petitioher '^ [^ WRTT PETITIONfS.l N0.802 OF 2007 Smt. Chandrakali versus Respondente : StateofChhattisgarhandothers 1 WRITPETmON(S.lNO.«»30F2007 Petitioner : Smt.Mamta Patel 1:• , ' : versus Respohdents : StateofChhattisgartiandothers WRIT PETmON(S.lN0.8040F2007 Petitioher : Mst.SarojJaiswal versus Respondente : State ofChhattisgarh and others WRtT PETmON (S.i N0.805 OF2007 Petitkiher : Smt. Shivmatl i : ' : ' ' • versus Respohdents : StateofChhattisgarhandothers wRrr pETrrioN (S.iNO.806 OF2007 Petitioner : Smt.Sushma Singh versus Respohdents : StateofChhattisgarhandothers F'resent : Mr. V.K.Pandey, counsel forthe petiUoners. Mr. V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. None appeare for other respondents. ORDER (Passsd on 9^ Day of February.2007) The common question oflaw involved in the present writ petitions js as to whether the District Collector has power to appotnt Anganl^acli Workers. The facts ofthe writ petitions are ateosimilar. Thus, the present writ petitfons are being clubbed together and being consid^r^dand deckled bya common prder. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that ttie petitioners along wlth others submltted their applicaUons for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Workers at various places in Amblkapur, District Surguja. The Panchayat, on the basis of a resolution.prepared a panel. The said p^nel was examined by ftie Project Ofncer.Woman and Chitd Devel^pment, Ambikapur, District Surguja and was placed before the Chlef g^ecutive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pratappur, who approved the lisflofcandidatesforappotntmentandsenttheentirerecordstothe )i|, Ambikapur, Disfriet Surguja. The District Programme Officer, Woman and Child Development Department, Ambikapur, Oistrict Surguja, under the order ofthe Collector, issued an appointment order on 18-tl-2007 (P.1). 3. | The maincontenUon ofMr V.K.Pandey.leamedcounsel (' ' • appearing for the petffioners is that the impugned appointment order dated 18-1-2007 (P-1), whereln the petitioneredid not find place, was passetl jby an incompetent Qfflcer as nelther the Collector nor ttie Distriqt i Programme Officer, Woman ancl Chlld Development ••\ Depar^nent, Ambfkapur fs competent to appolnt Anganbadl Wori^r^Sahayilcas. 4. cireular Leamed counsel appearing 1w the pstitioners relied on a dated ®-1-2000issu8Clby the Woman and Child Development Depaftottent, Govemment of Madhya Practesh. The said clrcular provides for appointment of Anganbadi Wortcers and Sahayilcas by Janpad Panchayats in rural areas and by the concemed Municipal Corporation/Municipatity/Nagar Panchayat in urban areas. It is ftirther provided in thecircutardated 6-1-2000 thatthis cireular is in continyafion of the eariier circular of the Gpvemment for appoinhnent. The said circular dated 6-1-2000 refere toearllercireular dated 27-5- 1996. | Thereafter, one rnore circular dated 29-10-1996 was issued by '' •' ' ' ' . - ''•.•' ....'.'•.'• -;. the Govemment in continuation of the eartier circular dated 27-5-1996, whejr^under inparaS, It ts provided that the Janpad Panchayat should 1 ~J. ' .. • . • 1 '.- •:... . . . -.. . . ' pas^the appointmentorderwithinaperiodofthree weeks on receiptof proposal. In default, the appolntment order can be passed by the 1 ! : . . ' cohcerned Child DevelopmentProgramme Officer on approval from the Collector. 5. i The relevant part of the circular dated 27-5-1996 issued i ~ : • : ^ , . ; byj the Woman and Child Deyetopment Department, Govemment of Madhya Pradesh reads as under:- "ftqq- ail'l'ltilA ^iTifegfaff ^ 'Si?lRwi3(f ^t ^t^f^f 1 ^4- 3ng9?r,'qf^sn ^q WH RtbW cCT 3(rS?[ <t't)l<t'/3)l^'tflil>{'t)/1?.^ff.3ft. -1<;t/95/3732/^TO; 26.9.95 XpT M ^iy cbBI?lfcth Sht.IT> t^ ^ lt?l> ll?iaj h.Jny ME ^. BfeB. fllS 1 ^ li'ify f. ^U" ^ty ^ ^: Slfiilfe tjah ^ ^3. Jiilfi Eb^ l^t i^jEy ^ jJ£ t?)l?»> ^l JU<bj? ^lbMilte 1MB ph.lb.h bhUlft •9^ «-^ ^u" ^<y uyiau is^y ^e fcil^ fete ^ IMPMP ^ J(1£^U£b& 1 ^ ^li. |?y |tb (Bhlbh MiU/ltbiajlh M>k/ki>y M>t> ugjBu. j< ^p inviui. usyyte f'- U0<l?y lu> l,l<:'"b1S)lsw' t>i' JK>Jt)rtlJ»lf Ip'llat-MKE; j^tBiK i^i"|j?yh ib^ fr y EI& pcytifriys os'ao 'B, cblU^J ^h uy&.>U, Ub|?ihP> cb |>llt.y 96'Qffa tt>ll"^J ?-(B/S6/e-9Z/8-8 <hh-<blk* ls.h |<bl»lhy -^t&iJfe. 1 u^j&y ^fe jipicb^jiau. b?i pjuu>j?ia> ^•Ibt-itiif uj>u*if IUIn(l?yh lb|* IMtby t.llb U<yt,», - h.hy,, -: jspun se spBsj MsspBJd B^MPSW JQ tuaiuiusAog 'tusuqjedsa »uaiudo|8A9a PU40 pue UBUJOAA syiAq psnssi 966l-01.-6ZPS»ep.ie|naii3sifl^o sved }ueA8|sj si)i .-: ^ ^ua ^sy vyiH.n IS^UB i±iy^ ayt f. l^j1?y y> |tfld>yi9B, bh ^IPJUtbjTlcb ^lfeMtUS JalS h^ ^>tb i»?.y |>.IB vil.i?i |^* ^y i»kfty.iih (, j^ 1MS |- IR teifc Jaltt-IaU^ ^. j|J&^UE u>y&->» Uto(->ht\ ^ fr ^) iy& A& ip$)h 'wlMie j^. i36& &S l jia <sb Ph'ltth Mtb/ltfl^Jlh Mib/Uty i'dib U^u. ^ fe^ ^ai& £^ )UMt»h tihUlft j^ jl£^ layiUt B£Usfel^e tt> uy1»y ^fe )if>iti>yiai.)t bh (K>jutbj?itb ^lfeblilie <y ^ ittlt Ifciy l?Jny JMB ,k ltii t^QL 1 1 affs'si.isyfcy 'eZ8/yi-<lR'tth'h/BS>(^y^U£/iEUA (^ •9 ^ 7. the ^Rqsrtt ?hn ft? PtgRa ^g U'WKI mm st^ ^3 wai? tf Pi^Rti sir^i y'HiRci q^ Wt •uirt! I ^ uiriuc; 4'^iocf ^ gra g^T araRt^f pi^J^f wEft Wv ^i€fftrar uirai t (ittx^'to'i ^ 3i^Tte7( ^ siriT-wi^t ^pfoaNi ^ 'ugiRl*i3(f ^t Pi^ftci '^HRtd qra ftwtr yR4)ui<ii aiRpRi^ gre qftuff ^:ift i" The relevant part of ttie circular dated 6-1-2WQ issued by Woman and Child Development Department, Govemment of Mad^ Pradesh reads as under:- T "f^SF!!:- »ll''ITl6ll^ •hl4't>df3(f T^ ;H?rRWI3ff qft Pt'tj.l^ri t . ••ERff- yn (Snw %i ira <t?*< vi? 8-3/95/5D f^tR'27.05.1996 wsi ww sre {^ifa ftpn TPIT 11^ 3fl''t'1«lt^ *l'if*rtf<iTt ^ ^rei^WIsif q5t i?q,fef ^ 3l|S|ft>l'i Ul41ti| ^3(F 4 ul'1l|<;;4ill'!l(l( Vt V V?f\ ^3 4 ^rafSld '•:PR ^TITIT/^TT'! 4lR|ct»l/'-T^? 4^1'yct ^ t ] 3<l'<WE|t^ 4>l4i*>tlM' 1?? ''RSTPRiTStf ??( f?T^Rl 'gTQ ^ 41?llq Pl'^Rd ^wft 3((^r y'tiiRri f^ TT^ ^:-" 8. I Onperusalofthesaklcirculars(supra),itisevidentUiatin cas^ pf delay caused by the Janpad Panchayat in Issuing appointment ordferwlthin a period ofthree weete from fte recelptofa proposal, the Chjldj Development Programm®OfRcer, on approval by the Collector, carj pass theappotntment order. In the present case, It appeare that the impugned appoiritnient order was passed by the Distrlct Programme Offlcer, Woman Surguja and Chjld Development Deparftnent, Ambikapur, District on approval bytheCollwtor. The <?rder Is accordingty passed by a cipnipetent officer. 10. With regard toother allegations, the Anganbadi Workere are admittedly employees of tte Pancha^ts as their appointments are made Gram 11. bythe Janpad Panchayats on proposal made bythe concemed Panchayats. The terms and conditjons of the seivicesof the petitioners are goVemed by the Madh^i Pradesh/Chhatt'sgarh Panchayat Raj AvatT^ 1 Gram Swaraj Adhjniyam, 1993. The Madhya Prad^s(i/Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (hent^eforth 'the Rules, 1995'), framed in exercise of the powers conferred bysub-section (1) ofSech'on 95 readwtth Section 91 ofthe !• i • • " Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh PanchayatRaj Adhiniyam.1993 (No.1 of 1994) provldes forappeal orrevision. Rule 3(b) ofthe Rules, 1995 ? : ! !: ;' • ! .' - ;- : . ' ' ' ' ' ctearfy provides that in the case of an order passed by the Cotlector under any provisionof theAct or rutes or bye laws made thereunder to the Oommissioner. The word "Commissioner" in the Rutes, 1995 has been dated Sjjbsdtuted by the words "Director of Panchayar by a notification 3-5-2003 (assed in exercjse of the powers conferred by sub- sectionl (1) of Section 95 read with Sectton 91 of the Chhattisgarh f^in^hayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (No.lof 1994). Thus, the appeal agairjist any order passed by the Collector is maintainabte before the Director of Panchayat, GovemmentofChhattisgarh. 12. The petlttonere have statutory altematiye remedy ava^labte by way ofstatutofy appeal under Rule 3 of flie Rules, 1995 to the Dlrector of Panchayat, Govemment of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners, without exerclsing of that altemative remedy of statutory ap^eal, have approached this Court directly. 1 13.1 It is well settted principle of law that the High Court, in ex^refse ofitsjurisdiction under Article2260fthe Constitutionof India, sh^ul^t refrain from entertaining a writ peUtion on the ground of av^il^bility of an altemative remedy, except jn cases where ttie Cqurt or the Tribunal lacte inherent jurisdiction 6r for enforeement of a funidamental right or ifthere has been a violation of principles of naturat justlce. (See Stateof H.P. andothers vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and another1, SanjanaU. Wg (Ms)vs.Hindusfan Pefrufeuro 1- i : '1: : • ' • ' ••. ' Conm. Ltd2, LK.Vermavs.HMTLtd.andanottiei3 and A.P. Fo^cfs vs. S. Samueland oVhws^j. 14j | Applying settted position of law to the facts of the present ca?e?, there 1s nochaltenge ofthe competence ofthe Tribunal/Auftority orith^tprinciptesofnaturaljusticehavenotbeen followect orthis is a ca?e of infringementoffundamental rightoranyprovisionofthe law. If th^re is any other ground avaitable, the petitioners are at liberty to avall 1 ': . - -. . ':-.' statutoryappeals. 1^, Thus, the writ petitions are dismissed as being not mgintainable in view of availability of effective statutory appellate forum. In the event, an appsal fs flled before the appeltate authority, this order •^\. shall not come in fte way of the disposal of the appeal in accordance with taw. No order as to eoste. 16. A copy of this order be placed on ffie record ofthe conn^qted writ petftions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gopal (20(»)6SCC499 (2005) 8 SCC 242 (2006)2SCC269 (2006) 5 SCC 469