INTHE H1GH COUR'I'OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUK WritPetitipnISlNo.l2W Petitioner Sint Lalmaa^ W/o Hanshaaker, aged about 25 years, Resident of village Brajnagar, Tahsil- Surajpui', Distt Surguja (C.G,) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh,through fhe Dtrector Paachayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) The Project OfScer, Departinent of Woniaii aad Child Developinent, Surajpiir, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) The Distdct Programme Officer, Department of Woman aiid ChUd Developineiit, Aiabikapur, Distt Surguja {C.G.) The Collector (Woman aiid ChUd Departmenf), Amibikapur, Distt Suiyija (C.G.) Shiv Kimiari Daughter of Radhika Prasad, Resident of VUlage Brajnangar, Tahsil Siirajpur, Distt Surguja (C.G.) WMTPETITON UNDER ARriCLES 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Honlale ShriSatish K. AgnihotriJ.) Shri A. N. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Arun Sao, Gtovt. Advocate for fhe respondents No. 1 to 4. ORDER (Passed on this 3rd Day of Maroh, 2009) 1, The petitioner, by fhis petition, mipugns the order dated 3.11,2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by fhe Director, Panchayat in Appeal Case No. 248/B-121/07-08 and the order dated 10.2.2009 (Annexiire P/2) passed by the Collector. 2. By order dated 3.11.2008, the Director, Paachayat partty allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 5 (Shiv Kumari) aad remitted back fhe matter to the Collector for a fresh decision, m accordaace withi law, after aBbrdmg opporturdty of hearing to aU the parties conceraed, The petitioner did not chaUenge fhe said order dated 3.11.2008. On rcmand, the inatter was takeu up by ffae Collector. The petitioner pardcipated m fhe proceedmg. Thereafter, by order dated 10.2.2009 the CoUector set aside ftie appointment of ffae 2 3. 4. 5. petitioner and appoiated fhe respondent No.S as new Angaawadi Worker subject to the conditiou th.at the new Angaabadi Worker shall be iiader aa obMgation to go for traming, i£sent by the employer, tf she fails to go tbr traiamg fhe appomtment shall be canceUed. Beiag aggrieved fhe petitioner has field tius petition impugning tihe order dated 3.11.2008, passed by the Director, Paachayat as well as the onler dated 10.2.2009, passed by the CoUector. Atter haviag compMed witti fhe order dated 3.11.2008 tlie petitioner has chosen to challenge the order dated IQ.2.2009 ia ftus Court, which is not inauitaiaable. The petitioner is estopped to chaUenge fhe order which has been acted upon wifh th.e assistaace of the petitioner. So far as tiie order passed by fhe Collector is concemed, fhe petitioner has aa alteniative remedy i.e. taking recourse belbre the Director, Paiichayat under fhe provisions of Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhmiyani, 1993 read with Rule 3 of fhe Chhattisgarh Paachayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. There is no exceptional circiunstaace to take a departure from fhe established practice of exhausting atl appeUate jurisdiction before approachiag this Court under wnt jurisdictioa. In this case fhere is no reason to take a departure. Thus, this petition is dismissed. However, Uberty is reserved to fhe petitioner to take recourse to alteraative reiaedy, which is efficacious aad efiective, lu view of tbie above, this petition has no nierit, it is accordiagly disimssed. SdJ- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Thakur