"^-iT1 ^^^•^iS^1 ^.•••".''/i''i0-""" ^•-^y^"""^-<^ ^i.a.Ayi""" ...t-;~';"\ 2^3 ^;::...-^VA "~" c^ > '3t/'' Srat. Hema Bai wife of Chetanram Kurrai, aged about-26 years, R/o Gram Panchayat Dudhiya, T Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.). •><• ^ "•> A^1 ^. .il A Sint. Oinlata wife of Mukhirara Kurmi aged about 25 years, R/o village- Dughiya. Gram Panchayat Dudhiya, Tahsil- Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham If 1'^, ;i 2. Comraissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur '* p,) ^ \^s . ^ ,, ...3. Collector, Kabirdhara ^ - 4. Chief Execiitive Officer, .?' Panchayat Kawardha, Distt. •cinatp. Janpad sr^ ^. S ^. ^r. 5. Project Officer, Integrated Development project, Kawardh Kabirdham (C.G.). Child a Distt. fST] he petitioner respectfully begs to submit as under:- As shown in the cause title As shown in the cause title ^ f^ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURTOF CHHATnSGARM : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.2068 OF 2011 Smt. Hema Bai Versus Smt.Omlafa&CMbere Wnt Petitton under Artlcte 226/227 irftheConstitutionorimlia) Single Bench : Mon'ble Shri Satish K. AgnihoW, J. Present:- Shri M.K.Sinha, Advocate for the petnionw. Sbri Basant Dewanoan, AdvocatefoFthe mspundent No.1 Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the Stat^respondente No.2,3 & 4. Shri SuryakantMishra.Advocatefarthe r^pandentNo.S ORDER (Passedonthis12*ldwofApril,2012) Challengein thispetitioni& to theonlwdated 24^3^011 (Annexiwe P-1) p^sed by the Commlssloner, Raipur Diyistofl, -RalpUF, eonfiiming the order dated 25.01.2010 (Annacure P-7), p^sed by the Gollector, Kabirdham and further seeks a direcBon to confinn the appomftnent order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-4), passed in favour ef the petitioner. TheTacts, in brief, are thatttie petitioner and r^pondent No;1 alor^wlth othere, apolied for appointment on the post of AnaarAadi vrorheT in Angantodi Center;Sul raparaBudbiya,.tanpadPancha^Ka»fairi(ia. The Chief Executive Officer, afterhaving coBside«ed1heappltoatlons of atl the applicants, selected the petittoner as Ar^anbadi worker. Thereagainst^ it appears that an appeal was flled betere the ColleetoT. The Cottector, vide orelerdated 25.01.2010 (Annexure P-7^ cwisidered the submission made bytherespondentNo.lthatths pettttonerwas ^* standard pass candidate and the respondent hto.t bad obtamed 8 examlnation Gertificate. n was further contended thatforappoinbneirt en ttie post of Anganbadiwoflar.theessentiatqualifieathmfemetricpass: however, in ab?ence of a candidate havtng metric p^s qualifeatton, the preferenee shou!d be given to classS pass. T^us,the respondert No.1 was entitled to be appointed in place of the prttttoner. Tt»€olteetor, aftsr holding that both the candidates had presed 5ttl standard .J^ S! •• '• s ''^•:^^&.. y ;-.t-"'S.'' 2 examinatton and further it was held that responderrt No.1 Omtda had obtained more marks, however. the appoinftnent was giwn to the petitioner on the ground that the Gertificate filed by the petitioner vws signed by Sarpanch and Secretary Jointly, when in case (rf respondent No.1, the same was signed by Sarpanch onty. Thereagainst, the appeal was preferred before the Commissioner. The Commtssioner, vide GRtef dated 24.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) rejected the apfwal filed by the petitioner. 3. ThecaseofthepetitionerbeforethisCourtisthatthereisnomateHal-to show that the respondent No.1 had obtained more marks. The finding. recorded by the authorities below is on the bssis ofsoiiiecoiflaetura® and guesswork, not on the b^is of any documentsamlcerttficates.lt was further contended that s'nee bolh Lhe oandi<iate have wssed 5B1 standard a<amination and the petttloner has obtaned 4^ raarks,^^ is eviderrt from the report of Integrated ChildWeffare Projest OfReer (.page 28). The respondent No.1 has ateo not produce any doeuments before this Court to indtoate that the respondent No.1 had obtained moie mart® than the petittoner. There is no whisoer even in the return fited bythe respondent No.1 in thls Court in respect of the martos obtain«t bythe petitipner as weS as by the respondent No.1. Even the resporalent No.4 i.e. the Chief Executive Offtoer hasalso not said anything about th® marte obtained by the respondent No.1 to the effect that she had obtained more marks. It is further brmight to the notice ef this Court by the leamed counsel for the petfttoner that petitioner has ateo oWained Pre-Middle Qass CerUficate having 62.20% marlcs ^iage no.SQ. Thus, the finding recorded by the Collector in its order dated 25.01.2010 and - confirmed by the Commissioner in its order 24.03.2011, is illegat as not based on any evidence on record. 4. In view of foregoing, the impugned ordere dated24.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) & 25.01.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed bytbeauthoritfesbelowaFe quashed. Thewrit petition is allowed. No orderastocosts. ashdt Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge