F .^ ^ 67 HISH COURT OF JUDICATURE <bHHAmS@ARH : BILASPUR &IVISIONIBENCH -r CORAM : HON'BLESHRZJAeDISH BHALL^, AgC.J. HON'BLESHRI&ILIPRAOS^HEB&ESHMUKH,J. ^ ^ APPELLANT PEEmONER R^ONDiNTS Present : ^- Wrlt Aiwea! No.55 of 2007 Smt SS^QshikaEa Anchal V^/o Shri Johoriiol Ancha, aged about 19 yers, occupation-AngcinbadiWorker, reside^t of Viiiage Domanpur; ^rctm PcEnchayat Domanpur, PostKlshungarh., Tahsil and Block • Pandariya, District Kabeer|dham (C5) Vs. 1. State 6f Chhattisgarh ithrough the SecretaryPanchoyatQhdSociai Department AAantrQiay^ &KS Bui Iding, Raipur(C©) 2. The Director, Women and Ghild Deveiopment Departmertt ChhQttisgarh, Rdpur, Tahsiland b^trictftaipur^ 3. The AdditionalCoiIectqrKQbeerdham, District Kabeerdham (C<&) 4. The Prcyect OffEcer, Integrated ChiEd Deveiopment PandoriyQ^ Block PandQriya District Kabeerdhom (C&) 5. Chief Executiye Officer/ Jdnpad PGnchQyGtPGndoriyQ.TQhsitPQndcriya, District Kabeerdham (C©)' 6. Smt KamleshBaghe! W/o Jegdish Prasad Baghei, oged about 21 years, resident ofvi1)090- Domanpur, ^rom Ki^hung^irh Tahsil and BlockjPondariya, District KGbeerdham (C&) Shri Suni 1 Sohu, counsel for the appellant. 1 Shri Indrosen Sahu, counsel for respondsnt No.6. Shri NK AgrGwal/Dy Advocate ©eneraifor the State. -z- .65 5.';; ^ •<-^ -^- ORAL ORDB^ (Passed on 26t(I June, 2007) The fol!owirg order j of the Court wcs possed by Jogdssh Bhalla, Ag CJ. Thi3 writ oppeal ari^es out of thejudgmentdQted 29.01.2007 delivered by Hon'ble Sin9le Jud9e. The order under chGll€n9ebefore the Sing!^ Jud9e was the appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of Arganwadi worker by QH order doted 30.12.2006. Petitioner/appeliant's so!e coritentson before HorfbSe Single Judge wa5 that the required quQlificatlon for appointment of the post referred to hereinabove is 8 Ciass and responderit No.6 has admlttediy obtained 54% mQrks where^ the petitloner ha^ passed Cl<2ss j 8 in supplementary examination. The petitioner/appe!!ant hod further contended before Hon'bie Sin9le Judge that the petitioner is living bebw powrty line. However, he could not indicate before Hon'ble Single Judge whether respondent No.6 was not iiving beiow poverty line. Counse! for the appeiiont couid not 3how cny low on the basis of which we CGH interfere with the order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge. Vl/e are jn fuil agreement with the view expres^ed by Hon'ble Singb Judge. Jhe appeal is devoid of merit, accordln9iy, it i^ di^missed, Sd/- ActmgChiefJustice padma Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge _Q