1 IN MI6H COUftt OF CMHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fs) N0. ^" PETITIONER RESPON&ENT5 /^. \/'.~iy ^^ z^y y^ ^M^ ^y ^y Vs OF 2011 Lokeshwari Chandra, wife of Shri Sdnpat Lal, aged 22 years, resident of — Gram Panchayat Bhotiya- Kanchanpur, Tehsil JaiJaipur, &istr'ict Janjgir-Chdmpa (C6) ^. • " ^ 1. State of ChhattJSgarh, through the Sec'r'etary, Depdrtment of Pqnchayat <& Rurdl Development, D. K.S. Bhawdn, Mqntralaya, Raipur. 2. Collector, Oistrict Janjgir- Champcr(C&) 3. District^ Project Officer, Women & Child Developmeflt DepaFtment, District Janjgir-Champa (C&) 4. Tehsildar-cum-Project Officer, IC&S, Tehsil Jaijaipur, i&istRict Janjgir- Champa^S) 5.Janp(lcl- Panchayat, jaijai p ur, thro ugh its Ch ief Executiye Officer. Janpad Panchayat, Jaijaipur, Dist ^'Janjgir-Champa(C(3). 6. Kanchan Kumari, daughter m • il!f n WM of' Shri Kaushal Prasad, aged about 24 years, resident of 6ram Panchayat Bhotiya-Jatapara, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir- Champa (C6) WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ T.f^f-J-^ttJ-^J'J-J'. ^2. ^T XI-HC—78 'ysr '^wwi, »Ti1^'i6, f°«iiyy Ij-fC-y^ 3a'2-s-/t/ Mwwi (hNlth SII^T 'Ta^i' ('icif^»<<1?) 200 Sf^V V\ R.lttt) cT«TT ^TT^T st)^( TCiiwafttT 3?i^r SB : |Hoa'ble Sbri Maaindra B|IohanShrivastava, J.] 16.6.2011 Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Shn Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A advance copy. <t>i«(td«Ili•<iinf tf fe'et <fa|*!;l< ^aifgtran^r <|:ounsel for fhe petitioner. Hvocate General for fhe State, on Heard on adinission. By this petition, the correctness and validity of orc by which appointment of includuig the petitioner. petjitioner has caUed in question tfae }er dated 9.6.1991 (Annexure P-1) Lanteanwadi Workers have been made Aanfeanwadi petitioner had submitt.ed her Bhotia Kanchanpiir, the petit which fhe petitioner has neve^ Leamed connsel for tt(e petitioner submits that whfle malang selection and prepaitjig select Ust for difl'erent centers, gladng mistake has been corjimitted, masmuch as though the ;andidatiire in respect of Centre- oner has not been considered for appointment ia that partici|dar center; but (he petitioner's candidature has been consid4red in respect. of Bhotia N.H., for applied for. He submits that this glaring mistake has been br^ught to the notice of the Project Officer, but fhe Project OfSceil matter. is avoiding to take decision in the I-HC—78 ~3ST "4NK>1<4, ®xily<ie,fsidiyy -Vs *IIHWI (h*n^ WI, 200 3H^T TT??T ('jclf^t^T) an^r ?ii •f^'fN? 'cTsn sn^r^qh? ?WTW ^rfsg sn^'i 2_- Praveen Froin fhe Ctrcular d promulgated by fhe State G<| there is any grievance with process of selection or va]ldity| grievance on account pf refu^ reraedy of appeal under claus< '»i<(I<i<ilfwrcff 4 fe^zt Tfsi^R ^sifinaii^i ated 2.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) >vt., I find that in the matter of selection relating to dUFerent ^osts in the field of Aanganwadi, if inay prefer an appeal before provision eontained under Adhiniyam, 1993. Therefore, petitioner an opportunity to Authority. tjhe Prescribed Auttiorily as per the |the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Ra^ it would be proper to grant fhe |file appeal before fhe Competent The pleadings of the pet^ inistake in preparation of petitioner has been made. With the aforesaid ob| disposed of. |regard to fhe correctness of fhe of fhe appotntment, includmg any sal of appointment, fhere exists a -11, wherem any person a^rieved, .tioner are to the efiect fhat glarin^ select list and inclusion of the In this view of the matt^r, it would be proper to direct fliat the appeal offhe petitioner sl^all be considered witlun a pcriod of 2 monfhs from fhe date of rec^ipt of copy of this order. ervations, fhe petition is fmally Sd-/, .,,..,:•. 3^anindra Mohan Shrreastaya f.j^'T^'/judge