-"?5~^ s«? —- —-_.—-.^^^s-^^^^^^S^^S) -•__•_.-—- — i HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (s) No. 1986 of 2007 PetiSoner Smt. Pramila Lakda. D/o Shri Chhotelal Lakda, Caste Gond, age<S about 25 years, Residart of Village ParwaUpur, Village Pandiayat ParwaCpur, Tahsit Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh. Thnaigh : The Secretaiy, Department of Women and Child Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Collector, Ambikapur, District Su^uja 3. The Dishict Pr<^ramme Officer, Woman and Chifcf Devetopment. Ambitepur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4. The Chief ExecuUve Offlcer, Janpad PanchayatSurajpur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.). 5. Gram Panchayat Parwatipur, Through : The Sapanch, Village PandTayat ParwaBpur, Janpad Panchayat Surajpur, Dishwt Surguja (C-G-)-. 6. Smt. Jyoti Kujur Wife of Shri Dinesh Ekta, Resictent of Village Parwatipur, Janpad Panchayat Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) SB: Hon'Me Mr. Justice SaSsh K. Agnihotri, J Shri V. K. Panctey, Advocate for the petffioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3. ORDER (Passed on this 2"d day of April, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petifioner challeng^ the impugned order dated 25.9.2006 (Annexure P/1), wrfiereby the r^pondent No.6 has been appointed on the post of ^tanganbadi Worter at Anganbadi Center Talvrapara, Village Panchayat Panwatipur, District - Surguja, on the ground that the appointment of the respondent No.6 is contrary to the provisions of the Anganbadi Scheme. 2. Learned counse! appearing for the peGBoner submits that Uie respondent No.6, who has been appointed on the post of Anganbadi Worker is not eligible for appointment on ttie ground that her fattier in law is an elwted Panch of the same village Panchayat in which she tas bssn ap?x>inted and since the pstifioner is a deserted woman, belongs to Scheduled Tribe communify, she has preferential right to the setection and appointment as Anganbadi Worker in Anganbadi Centre Talwapara. In visw of the above, without ejyressing any opjnion on facts as weB as on merit, the Collector, Surguja is directed to look into the allegatoi made by the pefiBoner and pass appropriate order, in accordance with Aar®anbadi Scheme and law, after affording proper opportunify of hearing. The wit petiSon is accordingly disposed of. No orcter as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge