’wgé WRIT PETITION (s) No. \73 OF 2011 K, Smf. Che‘rna Thakur W/o, Shri Laxminar‘ayanrThakur' aged abouf 23 year's, R/o Village Charoda ‘B' P.O. Bhifhidih, Tehsil Kasdol, DisTr'icT Raipur‘ (C.G.) PETITIONER i=3. RESPONDENTS h h VERSUS /, : ‘ 1. The STa’re of Chhaf‘risgar‘, Through Te Principal SecreTar‘y, Departmenl of Women and Child Welfare, Mam‘mlaya a‘r D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). / 2. The Collecfor', Raipur (C6). 3.(Chief Executive afficer, Janpad Panchaya’r Kasdol, Disfric’r Raipur (Ci?) iThe Dislfr'icf Programme Officer; Dis’rricT Women and Child Welfare Officer. Raipur DisTricT Raipur (C.G.) The Project officer, Chil Developmenf, Infegra‘red Child Developmenf Projeci'. Districf Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Q : 4 d @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 173 ofZOll PETITIONER : Smt. Chetna Thakur. VERSUS RESPONDENI‘S : The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Shashank ’Ihalmr, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1, 23 4 and 5. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 13 day of January, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the documents submitted by her in terms of the guidelines issued by the State Government for appointment of Anganbadi Karyakarta. Fuither, the respondents may be directed not to issue any appointment order for the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta for Devgaon/Charoda-B, till the representation ofthe petitioner is decided. 2. Shri Thakur, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appointment on the post of Angangbadi Karyakarta for the Devgaon/Charoda—B, is not being done in accordance with law and there are irregularities going in the appointment process. The petitioner has also made a representation to the respondent authorities but no order has been passed on his representation. 3. On the other hand, Shri Dubey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 submits that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not availed the _\ . alternative statutory remedy, which is available to him under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal & Revision Rules, 1995. . Be that as it may, the identical question came up for consideration before this Court in Ram Bai v. Stare of Chhattisgarh & Others], whereim this Court, relying on va1ious decisions of the Supreme Court, has clearly been held that the High Court should not interfere if there is adequate efficacious alternative remedy and where hierarchy of appeals is provided, the party must exhaust before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made out for making departure from normal rule. This is not one of the exceptional case where this Court should interfere. . 1n view ofthe well settled law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court on the issue of availability of alternative remedy to the fact of the case, wherein no case is made out for making out a departure from normal rule, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable in View of the availability of statutory altemative remedy. . However, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to statutory alternative forum that may be available to him under the provisions of law, if so advised, Satish K. Agnihotri Judge AJ\ Sd/-' ‘ 2008(1)]3LJ 304