^^ ^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISQARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition(227) No. 5925 of2008 PetMoner Smt Aaarika Bal, W/o Shri Shwdayal (AppUcaa^ Satnami, aged about 30 years, Anganbai worker, Angaabadi Centre Kashideh, Crram Panchayat Saldor Tahsil & Janpad Panchayat Sicaga, Resident of Vitk^e Kashideeh, Tah. Simga, Dist. Raipzir (C.Q.) Versus Respondents 1. Stete of Chhattisgarfa, throu^t Secretaiy Paachayat & Ruial Devetopment/Welfare Departiaent, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Ralpur (C.G.) The Chief Executive Of&cer, Janpad Panchayat OfELce, Sim^a, Tahsil Sin^a, Dut. Raipur (C.G.) The F'roject Officer, Integrated Child Developinent Service, Simga, Dist Raipur (C.G.) Smt SushU. Bai,W/o Shri Laxcaau Baujare, Rcsidcnt of VIU^e Kashideh, Tahsil Simga, Thaaa Suhela, Dist Raipur(C.G.) Smt. Rajeshwari Bai, W/o Shri Goluram Satnami, Resident of ViMage Kasfaideeh, Tahsil Simga, Ttoana Suhela, Dist Raipur (C.G.) WRIT P&TITOILUNDER AJRTICLE 227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'bte ShriSatish K. ^nihotnJ.) 3. 4. 5. ^ Shri.R. S. Patel, Advocate for tfae petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Paael Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 and 3/State. Shri H. P. Agarwal, Advocate; for fhe respondcnt No.4. O R DE R (Passed on this 10th DayofFebmaiy, 2009) 1. With tfac consent ofteamed counsel appearmg tbr the parties, the inatter is heard finatly. 2. The petitioiier, by thls petition, iiupugns the oider dated 10.9.2008 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Sccretaiy, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat and Rural-DcvelopHieatDepaa-tinent, Maatralaya, Raipur in Case No. 245/B/Judicial Panchayat/2007-08, whereby fhe revision filed by the ; petttioner has been dismissed. .^ 6. s Learued counsel appearu^ for the petitioner subinits that by order dated 31.7.2006 (Annexure P/10), fhe petitioner was appointed as Angaabadi Worter ia village Pancliayat - SaJdor, Ai^aabadi Center - Kasludih, Jaapad Panclaayat- Simgp- Tfac petitibner joined ber duties oa 13.9.2006 (Aaaexure P/11). ChaUei^ing the appoiatment of the petitioner oa fhe post of Anganhadi Worker, fhe respoadent No.4 (Siat. SushU Bai) fited aa appeal before the Additioital Collector, Baloda Bazar, which was allowed by order dated 28.6.2007 (Aanexure P/13). Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.6.2007, the petitiDncr filed a revisiou bcfore ttie Director, Paacliayat, wUch was disinissed by order dated 8.1.2008 (Annexure P/16) and the subsequent revision to the Secretaiy, Ctovt. of Chtaattisgarh has sdso been disniissed by the hnpugued order dated 10.9.2008 (Annexure P/1). Leamed couiMel appearing for fhc petitioner submits tbat tbe petitioner is fully quatified aud eligiblefor appointiaeat on the post of Anganbadl Worker as she te Uviug below the poverty Uae and a ration caad to fhat efifect bas also been issued to fhe petitioxier by the conipetent authorily. Tbe petitioncr belongs to thc scheduled caste and she is a permaneiit resideHt of viU^e Kasahidih. Tbe Policy for appointment of Aaganbadl Worker provules ttaat local person sbould be given priority over others. TIie naiae of ttae petitioiier was recoiamendcd by the Project OfBcer, Integrated Child Deivck)pment Sennce, Siinga aud fhe petitioner was appointed after coiupleting tlae proceedmgs, ia accordance with law. ~--^ f B, ;«•":.;'"?;.. ^"^^ ^\; »&».. Si '<'sSfc, i ~"^^ KS 's. s"^ S l, "'%^wS!'^/ 'ti»teo».Si^/ "\ ^ 7. I have heard leamed counsel appeariag for the parties aad perused the documcnts appextdcd thereto. 8. It appears that tbe three authorities below have carefulfy examined the inatter aad aftcr affording dye opportunity of bearing fhe iiapugaed orders were passed, in accojxlanBe with law. The Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat aad Rural Developineut Departmcnt, whfle disiaissaig fhc lension observedas under:- * yrtteT'waf ipr <tCTi<4i«fl <<>*fi* 1 ^t aihr u'ht<f (i^ %T ai4<?il**i s^ u<t><ui ^ 'u'tlSid ^yT ai el<stT vf v^Stvfsf few 'W 1 KTI TraPRT '^WclN SRT Wll-f41^1 ^Pl'Rrf qft ft^tT ^ f^-IW 16/02/2006 VS ti'1<(SI"l<bttf W 'ciCTXIItfl WW®1 WWf ii'wiRo ffevf 'w t i Pl^fer ^ wra apiftw w^ w 'in ^rftft ^vff ^t ^ wrerar ^^ 4 ^WCT sN wNt <;<di4ui ii^cr •rif few ^rer m 1 urafe drt<<ti<a ww i ^ 'H^ ^r ^m ^ft ^snr ^t ^ ^hr ?NT irar ?rar t i W»T A id<4irii ^t ^f <ft dCTt<«l|tft '61W 1 W 'Tffl t{($Id i i !i'i'fla"i«t>dfsro 61<?11'R> *l<141 ^af w»rvi v^i few iw t Kvs VK wi-si. ••m^Rf yEti «<>i4>ii<?i'i arftwrit aw ^ignra' f^®raI^STR 3ilSi*i'0 ^ g'wKH't t 1 'H'gPW R«bl<U R'WI't aiRl'hl'8 STCT R'tl'* 10/07/2008 ^ B'RIWSR feqr -TOT € 1 %wA ^t iritrT BtdT t f^ !l-lflia"l<f>dl SRT ail-t-t-lpT-i-T ^ fSF-rW 10/07/2008 %t ^NW ^r mm ^ra 4-t4i<ii ^rar t | dq^<w fW?r vt ^fics'id ^a^ ^? wncro. Trarad, UCTti<f<id. •wrp ^ u<<><"i wnra> 298/ar-89/2<ioe-07 4 iirRg W^f R-fl* 08/01/2008 %<EtlAT( ^lhq •I^ t i ara: ^^em^rf STCT V^SI y-fftsm qtRt*! SprttoR qft <mft 11 iiw?nr 4 ^wi ^ WrftRT ^lftd 3H^r R-11* 11/02/2008 q>t ft^a l^IT ullOT t (" 9. I have exaxaiaed other docuiaents also. I fouud that the fliidings recorded by the aufhorities betow as well as the Secretaiy, Govt. of Chhattisgarh ia revision axc oa the b^is of the doouments produced by ttic pctitfoner. Thus, there is no '^t •.;....-,.-.-?«? 1. 10. Thalcur B-regularity, iUegality or jiuisdietional crror ia the impugned order. It is weU-trigh establislied that fhis Court ia exercisc <rf its supervMory jurisdiction should refi-aui itself fiTQia interiering with tbe orier passed by the Courts betow, esecept ia such cases wliere perversity, fflegaUly, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ Isacys on the facc of tfae record, which is not iu fhc present case. la view of flie above, ttus petitton has no aacrit, tt te accordix^ly dtonussed. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^