,^vUJLJL.Y^L BBSM JB 2HB HKH GOHRT OF JTTDICATUBS OF MABFIYA PSABBSH AT JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.^i_^_i_3_ of 2000. Petitloaer s Ku.Shanta Gautaa D/0 Shri B.S.Saataa aged about 35 years, resident of village Kapan via Afcaltarg, Distriot Janjgir^Chaapa (H.P) • B_espoQdentg -Tersos- 1. Janpad panchayat AKaltara 'fchrough Chief Exeeative Officer Janpad Panehayat Akaltara . Districi Janjgir-Champa , (M.P) 2. GoaBissioner, Bilaspur (M.P) 3. Golleotor distnct 3'anjgir-ChaBpa (M.P) 4. SBt.Saraswati Sandilya, -wife of Lateeshwar Siagh, aged aboat 30 years, resident of village Kapan, Vikastehand Akaltara, district Janjgir (M.P) 5. Sraa Panchayat Kapan» through its gecretary, - Graa Pgnohayat, district Janjgir-Ghaapa (M.P) PETITIQN UEfSBR AB2IGLS_2a6;OF_'r^__GOIST33!OTIONGF 3HDI& FOB SEBKIRQ A WS n 2EE HASTffiS 'DF GEBSIORaBI^X&BBAAUS^PRQHJBE'iaR AHB DIBBGIIOH MD___/_OR ORDBB XI-HC-22 3^ •<II<IIM<I, eiTn'y'is, RldKiy. 3ll3i<?l <<5|ch '•/Vf. iiini !»>*iiq> o 200 sn^T^iT R'fi'fcsn^ir sniiqi Bf^tT sniiqi aiA<i 6«]iWwfs<T '»i<ilci<h-<><w<iTft'tecit'<Ri«i< ^iati^TW^r Shri PP Sahu,counselforf Shri NK Aarawcl, &y fachhawaha, ffovernment Advc^cate for respondents No.2 A 3 / lAdvocate (Seneral with Shri AS None for o-ther respondehts Factuat matrix of the c<|tse graduate from 6uru ©hasidas along with her parerrts. Her servant, is drawinq oension © of persons living below the sanctioned three posts for Panchayat, Kdpan, &ist-Joinjgi »asseda resolution, and in brief is that oetitionef is a tpniversity, Biiaspur. She was living father being a retired govemment i.700/- and was inciuded in the list t>overty line. State Sovernment Rls recomihended Karyake|rta •-Champffl 6'ram Ponchayat, Kapun, name of 1tie petitioner for and recommended the rwme of (f An9<mwadi Sahayika, but in place :utive Officer, Janpad Panchayat pO.12.1997 (Uipointed respondent the post of Angonwad'i respondent No.4 for the post of the petitioner, Chief Exe^: Akaltaro. vide order dated No.4 on 1+ie post of Ang< petitioner submitted a rep^esentation and finalty •Hie order was modified, by app^inting the petitioner on jjie post -r^ (^^ir) XI-HC-22 3:5?-<11<11<'1<1, ®Tn<^'[S,Iqcll+iy . sn^rV^ff .. h! P'^s., 111WI SBIItft l9wo W[ 200 i=l't>«A 3n^?T?iT R-fi^sn^r sti*fi=ti ^f?(T Stl*fl=t) a;n^?T?^nw?ifeT •A- '»i<<Ifl<(l-iii*<nTffte^t-<Ri«i< ^Slf^lTSfl^T of Anganwadi Karyakarta and a|ccordingly she took char-ge of 1+»e post on 26.09.1998. (2) ftespondeht No.4 |assaited the petitioner's appointment before 1+ie Collector, Akai1|ara inter-aiia on the gi letitioner's father is drawing |>ension more than Rs.3000/- per manth and petitioner's sister is Secitetarv of 6ra.m Panchayat. Ther-efore, petitioner was not eligible an<| qualified for being appointed on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta. Officef. Mahila Evam Bal Vika^." Janpad Panchoyat, Akaltaro. and vide his or'der dated 03.03.1999, c^celled petitioner's appointment on the is drawing annual pension Rs.12,000/- and he has 3.50 acres of land; t(?ho wi-rtiholding this information, got his name recorded in The iist <] therefore, petitioner is not con^petent for preferentiai considenition. (3) Feeling aggrieved, Commissioner, Ex-Officib App Collector caited report from the Model f persons iiving beiow poverty line, petitioner preferred an appeai and the sllate Authority vide his order dated 26.04.2000, sustaining the or<|er passed by the Coilector; dismissed the appeal. Feeting aggrieved t{ (4) Learned counsel .sljor the petitioner contended that the iricome recorded by the aut^ority sension is incorrect. Accordir|a to PPO i.e. Annexure P-1, pension of ^?^.. (•Oi^f^r) XI-HC-22 3^' •<<I<<IC1<), S9Tn^'l6, fidKiy sn^r V^ef> *11<TPIT 91HTW^ ^•£-M.^3ci9/&c.^ R*^,' W]; 200 SI^T^T R-ii'sfcSII^T »tii<»^fiCT »MI<» 31W SWlWHfttT -3- <iii''ilci4)') •<wciTffteI^)'<Ri«;i< ^sri^ITSlI^T IS RS. income, petitioner's father fa below the poverty lina. preference in her appointment. both the orders and in fulfil! ttie eiigibility criteria. candidate should be in ttie other conditions remain the is to be aiven Dreference. basis of thi« oateagry of persons who are h|erefore, peth-ioner was entitied for On 1+ie other hand, State suppor-ted 1 contended that oetitioner does not ^ccording to criter'ia, no relative of the service and for- preference, if (9ov|ernment safns, person frorn beiow the poverty iine is a clerk in the Agricultur'e Department. As si^ch, two sisters are holding ©overnment service; 1+ierefore, petitioner^ criteria. Tliat opart, petitione|r' per ntonth.^excluding DA of icnd. Leamed counsel for have unyeiled correct picture, not fall within the aiigibitity is gettino oension (a? 1000/- benefits. He aiso hoids 3.50'acres fur-ther contended tiiat they the.ir' (5) It is not disputed| cny fand. Petitioner herself h4 document, pension that was month. Un-disputediy, accordii^g that was fi?<ed ^ duly yerified by an that petitioner's fathei* [s filed Annexure P-1; by 1+ie Sovernment to thfflt document. is Rs. not hold ig to that '- per bA or (^y^) XI-HC-22 sn^rqir R-fi'sbSIl^T SBlit) df?(T SBIIt) ^^^ ^' 3^ •*>\w^, wS»'\e,^wwy. 311^1 M^qi —U.:^.o.-fi?3.CJ.I§6S£- Wt 200 *<l*<MT»*»IflR sn^rsRnwBfeT A oltiei* relisf, pension payable ijsas Rs.1000/- per mon1n. Petitioner's father commuted his pension; ("fts.37 656/-) and ther-eafter it 's also expect. somef'iina, thei to below ooverty line and w<i disoutediy, two sisters of thel ouidelines create a SDeci iovernment service. Karyakorta. <ti<<fci<fl-< >iw<iT^:fW'<Ri«i< ^Tsri^iTsn^r tiierefor'e, he was oaid o totai sum of :re beina any disoute, it is evidenf that 'os more than Rs.1000/- oer month and vert/ line i.< is not entitled for oreference. Un- seoarateiv; but no such exemplrion has been ailowed in the auideiines. fic .bfcr' that be all no one whose s'etatives are » to be apDointed as [•or the petitioner further contended that resaondent No.4 has no jo\:us stands ^o chailenqe the apDointment of the petitioner' as she woss relconnmended bv the 6ram P<mchaya.t for the post of Anganawadi Sahay!f<a. On the other hand, it was opposed by ths counset for the Stat^. Admittedly, (^S^r) XI-HC-22 3^ •<11<<ICI<4, OTflyiS, Rcllti^< 3T(^T qsra^ . f^p-^ 0^899 /SCM *<i*ini snii'0 '"""""""""" W]' 200 R*«A sn^T^r Is-llf'W^T Sfliqidf^T Sfliqi 3n^?T BTdRR dfer y - °n]<<I<l<hi *<WCTl^''to^)'<Rl«l< ^?3lf^IT3II^T 'aa/Bini was ODDointed to the Post eppointed to 1+ie post of Anaai^wadi Karyakarta, and her appointmen was cancelied on the repr^ cancellation of her appointmen' of Arsaonwadi Karyakarta. In other than respondent no.4 is her appointment, and she chatlenged 1+ie canceilation ovd^r before appi (7) In the result, ther^ petition is iiabie to be dismisse< facts lerson a circumatances, no one canceliation of wfis Deing ; is no and is accordin rooriate forum. irs the oetition. Hence the Sd/- V.K.Shrivatava Judge \ ^^ (iftty^)