HGH $91.??? QF QHHATT3$GA§W BA$PUR IL Wrii ?ei‘§€ion No. $$3 of 2Q$S ?e?§tione( Smt. Ansuiva Bai, W/o. Late Shri Wareiai Mamdavi; aged 24 years, R10. Gujara 1- ;aSi;—:sakao, m . x rm. uiwimi Gurg was}. If\r" Cccusatiom Work 01" Anqanbadi at Guiara. 1,. “mt. Kamim Bai, W/o. Sumdariai Sahu‘ i ed 24' vear$ }' Rfo, Emma MM Tahsi‘ — Pa’ad Distt. Durg Officer, Wcman and C‘niisciren- ment Samittee. Janmad z. Doadé. Tah. Sam“; DEstt. Dug :3) Chief Executive Officer. Janpad Pancnayat Dcndi; Tahsii —' Balm} Dist: F‘ m1 w mm 4} State of CG. ihrough Secretarv, Panéhayat . & 2 Vikam ManfraJaQ; le Kw»; m n DKS. Bhawan, Rat {CG}; 5) Caiiector, burg "‘\ (CG). l" 6) Direotc-r a? Panchayat D.K.S. Bhawan,, Raipur (CG). {Writ Pem'mn unGer ilxrtide 226/‘227 o? the Ccns’tituticn of india. ) $E: i-ian’bb mi. Saiig‘; K. Agiaiha§ar§, J, Present: Shri Hanumam Pra$ad Agrawai, caunsey for the peuttoner, 8m ‘v’iEahm; Ks3tha. caunss; far the resmndent N‘s. '1. , Shré Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Gwc. Advccaée forthe respomtienis NQQ, 4, 5 and 815mm. Gmi. <3R§ER :Pagsed on 18"“ day of duly, 2mg} By ihis petiiion, the petitianer immgns the order dateci 1M £005 (Annexure 9/5) passed by the Director, Panchayat, m Case No.“i8/A—8§i03—G4, whereby the appeai med by the pe’titioner was dismissed‘ camfirmmg me order passed by the :r ; Additionai CokEector‘ directing Janpad Panchayat iuat procese: of appointment on 'i’ne pact of Anganbadi Karg :3 be ir‘iitiated and completed afresh. in acooro‘aoce with Eaw and varioue circuiar's issued by tt‘ie Goveri'imemt‘ Qp a p a 2 2) The indisputahie facts, in mu‘tsheii, as pro}ected‘by the petiticnei‘ are fhaL peii‘tioner was appointeeé as Anganbadi Karyakarta, pursuan i1) Seiectio'n arid approvai made in a meetingon 1843-2002 caned by the respondent No.2. The saia’ appoinfment was confirmed in favcur of the pet§tioner by order dated 22-3-2002 (Annexure F372) by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, ‘Done‘i The respondeni No.1,.who was unsuccessfui cahdidate‘ fiieci an applicatich before the dditionai Coiiectar, Burg, chaiienging the Gi'der of appointment of the petitioner on the pest of Anganbao‘i Karyakartat Additionai Cotiector, Durg; aiioweo’ the appiicati‘on of the respondent No.1 vide order dated 48-2003 (Annexure PB) on the grouno‘ that when the candidates having Ciase Viii examination certificates were avaiia'oie, how the petitioner having ‘v‘ti paes certificate, couio‘ be appointed on the post of Angan'oadi Karyakarta and the same is contrary to the provisions of Ciause ttA) (8) of circuiar dated 6—1—2000 (An‘nexure Pf6). Being aggrieved, the petitionertiied a revision before the Director, Panonayat, Raipur,‘CG. The Director, Panchayat, by order oated 11-1—2035 dismisseo‘ the revision uphoiding the ' order dated 4-8-2003 (Anriexure P13) passed by the Additionai Coiiector, Durg. Thus, this petition, e t 3) Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawai, teamed oounsei appearing for the petitioner submite that the other candidates, who had Viiitn Ciass pass certificates, were not otherwise qualified as respondent No.1 happened to be a reiative ot the Government servant and other candidates were disquaiitied on account of fact that they were not peiow the poverty iine nor divorcees nor SCIST candidates. Though the petitioner was not property quaiified, being a member of the ST community, the petitioner has a preferentiai right to he considered and appointed on the post of Angan'oadi Karyakarta. 4) ' Mr. Vishnu Kostha, teamed oounsei appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that I'oy the impugned order, no direction has been made for giving appointment to any candidate. The order simpiy provides for fresh ,seiection in accordance with the provisions of the circuiar dated é—‘i-2000 (Annexure Pro} Ciause ‘1(A) (6) of the said circuiar oieariy provides that tor want of avaiiabiiity of arr“ "> h A Ciass Vin candidares, the oi’ner persons having lesser quaiiféaation may be considered Admi‘k'iedEy, an {he candidates except the Detttioner, are having mass Wt quattficationt So far as other preferentiai right is concerned; that has tc be considered thereafter; net before requiring the minimum Guaiiftcatien fer the post ‘5) Shri Ajay D vivee’i, learned Deputy Govt. Advoeate aopearing fer the State eubmt‘ts that the order cf abpbihtment of the eetttioher de hers the scheme as the yrcvisiehs 0f circuiar eateci 64-20% {Annexure PIE) is bad arrd ittegei. A teseer qualified candidate has been chosen for abpointmeht, when other beiter quahfied candidates were avariabie. 6) Be that as it may, without expressmg any cpihiah on the merit Gt "he case; since the tmpugned order passed by the Directer, Panchayat, ercvides for fresh appointment in accordance with the provismhs of iaw: it does not need anv interference. From pemsai of the documents and the admiseton oi the counseitor the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner was Viith ciass ease candidate When other candidates have better quaii‘rioation. Janpad Panohavat may initiate fresh seiection procees after having considered aii the’aspects as provided in the circuzar dated 6-1 2006 (Annexore P76}. 7') This Court, in exercise of its extraordinary iurisdiction under i—‘xrticie 2261227 0" the Constitution of thdia has iimited scope to interfere with the finoi gs of the Court beiow. The High Court can interfere only in cases of erroneous aseumption of facts or excess oi jurisdiction, refusal to exercise iuriso‘iction, error of iaw apparent on the face of records: arbitrarv or capricious exercise of bowers of the authority or discrimination: ftagrant error in procedure and recording of the perverse findings in the present case, i have not found that any of the ground stated above has been invoked to seek interference of tr is Court Si in view of the foregoing; no interference is warranteg‘ with the impugned order. Accordinoiy, the petition is dismissed. . vSd/_ " Satish K. Agnitt‘otri r ' Judge OQJ. l [‘7 [KI [ ' g