HISH COURT OF CHHArTESfiARH AT BILAS'UR. Writ Petition (S) No. 1395 of 2007 Petitioner Versus Respondents Smt. Sitiya Bflii, oged obout 23 yedrs. W/o Padmbchan, R/o Village Keramunda (Tukda), Sram P<nchayat Kudaribnhara, yikas and Basna, Ciistt. Mahasamund (C.6.) 1. The State of Chhottisgarh through Secretary, Women Oiild Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, (C.6.) Rdpur 2. The Coltector Mahasamund 3. Tlie Project Officer, Chjld bevelopment Project, Distt. 4. The ChEef Executive Officer, Janpad Ponchcyat. Basnnn, Distt. >. Sfflt. Vinodani aged about 25 years, W/o Krishna Kumar, R/o Village Keramuida (Tukda), Gram Panchcyat Kudaribdiar'a, Vikas Khond Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (C.6.) Singte Beneh; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. ^nihotri". ant; Mr. Ms. ig Kotecha, Advoeate for the petitioner. pali Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State. yossed on 13th Oay of Mnpeh, 2007) The fo!!o»vingorder of the Court was pcssed by Satish K. lAgnihotri, J. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is better quali'fied than respondent No, 5, who has been q»pointedon the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta i'n 6ram Panehayat Kudaribcrfiara, Vikas Khand iasna. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 !ives below the poverty -th /• iine and both sre the 7 Ciass passed. The petitioner s to O.B.C. aWtttww ^' eategory whereas the respondent No. 5 beforys to ©eneralCategory. The appointment of the petitioner hos bsen denied on the basis that the she iives above the poverty tine which is contrary to facts cnd records. Since both ore !iving bebu' the poverty iine, the petitioner being O.B.C. estegory, has prefepential right over the respondent . 5. 2. Be that as it may. the Coltector, Mahasomund is directed to !ook into all the 3. ier in in a period of six weeks altegations made by the petitioner accordance with Aangonbadi Scheme asid !aw within from the date of receipt of a copy of thi's order. The writ petftion is accordingly disposed of. No wder as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge