.^y-. ^'€•..!.i !^ ^Si^l •^ ^-y ^ . \^~ '7ST ^{WW^, ytll-H^Ko, fs|dl'H^< *11H<lr(T«»*11ch "^ 200 'STT^T 'q^F ( y<f^^) 371^1 ^T f^^icb '^T8?T ^TT^T 9b*li<^ '^^TW^f^3^T PETITIONER (Non-applicaat no.l) RESPONDENTS 3. 4. 5. W.P. J2271 NO.S223/2008 Taraa about Badi ^ Vill.-Pi] fCG) ^ati, W/o- Digamber Siagh Gond, s^ged ^2 ycars, at prcscnt working as Angan forker, Angaa Badi Center KhaUietojte., Pi^adya, Tah. Pendraroad, Distt-Bilaspur Versus State Departjtnent D.K.S.I Raipuij Directc (CG) Writ Petition U/A 21 '^»'Prf^?zft;T'HW^ff ^* 'fe^t ipsl-^K ^"3^R3?T^T >f Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, of Panchayat aad Social Welfare, Bhawaa, Mantealaya, Raipui', District- (CG) r Paachayat, Raipur, District "Raipiir Additictnal CoUector, Pendra Road, District" Bilaspiir (CG) Chief [Executive Officer, Janpad Paachayat, Mar^a^d, District-Bilaspur (CG) Leela 1/ati, W/o-Mahipat Siagh (Otd), Gond, aged ^bout 31 years, R/o- ViUage-Piparia /l'ahsil-|Marwahi (Pendra Koad), Uistdct- Bilasplir (CG) (appel|ant before fhe Director Panchayat) Kaush|aya, W/o- Late Mohaa Sia.gh, GLged aboiit j 19 ycars, ViUagc- Pipariya TahsU- Maiws|hi (Pendra Road), District- Bilaspur (CG) (non-^ Prcinvt -^ppllcant/formal party) iti, W/o-Dashrath, agcd about 25 years, (ViUage-Pipadya TahsU-Marwahi (Pendra Road),| District-Bilaspur (CG) (non-ajppllcaiit/fbrmal party) 7 pfthe Constitution of India i '^1 [C—78 3^T^T'f^fN? ^T8TT 3TR?T »i*ll<^ ^sr "4i'4i(n^, ytii-H^Ko, fo|crii'H^< *111^( »»+11<h ^ 200 ^TI^?T TT^' ( yil^q^) IT^nW^rf^T ^IT^T 2--1 S.B. HON»BLESHRI DHIRENDftA MISHRA. J. 18.09.2008 Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate Shri Yashwaat Sia.gh State. ShnA.S. Rajput, Advocat^ Heard, This petition is directed| Annexure P-5 passed by thei Appeal No.lSS/B. 121/06.07, respondent No,5 has been CoUector, Pendraroad confiraiu Aangaxi Badi worker m Salhetolla has impug^ied The petitioner has impug^ied husbaad ofrespondent No.5 w^s Goverainent servaiit, the pet|1 category aad there was an ta.o]|duiate prcfenlag the appeal, The Dtrector Panchayat t|as No.-5 by fhe mipugned order wjith of Sliiksha Karmi by fhe husb^ad flie appoiiitiiient as per rules, it is evident fhat the naine offjie Mst of the persons who be| cr»l<<?^l<I1l 'HPT^ff ^f ?^^\ if^l^K ^^tRw 3?r^r |for tiie petitioner, T|iakur, Dy. Advocate General for fhe ^ for rcspoudent No.5. against fhe order dated 2.9.2008 of Director Paachayat, Chhattisgarh ia l^hereby fh.e appeal preferred by the aad fhe order of the Additional ig fhe appouitnient of fhe petitioner as been set aside. titie above order on fh.e ground that Shiksha Karmi Grade-III aad as such [tioner belongs to below poverty Une delay of morc fhan 6 months m allfcwed allowed fhe appeal offhe rcspondent aa observation fh.af holdiag the post of AaEigaii Badi worker is not bar in rom the documents avaUable on record respondent No.5 was uicluded in the oug to below poverty Lme categpxy. 4- XI-HC—78 'S^ ^WW^, ^tll^Ko, fc«rtl-M^< *11*1<flT (t»*1ich ^ 200 3^?T TT^T ((^?<1<SI^) W^T ^5T f^^Jch ^T8H 3TT^T Sft<-l|c?) '^^TW^f^^T^T •3 tlle thab oilder: The respondent No.5 has served) centre aiid as per circulars of for prefercnce because of fb.e afoi So far as delay of niorc concemed, fhe aforesaid obje< paragraph-5 of flie inipugned exprcssly condoned. Takiag iato consideration Paachayat for extendiag prefer^ zaatter of appointoaent of Aaagaiji tliat she had already served as ^ for a period of 8 years, I aoi of montiis m prefemiig flie appeal fhe respondent No.5 froin fhe For fhe aforesaid reasont jurisdiction error coniimtted uiterference ia. exercise of Constitution of India. The petiljic accorduigly disuiissed at fhe \^ TTTR^rf ^' l^^ <rsi^i< ^>'3tRm3?T^r as Aaagan Badi worker ia fhe saine State Goveniment she was entitled ^said rcasons. 6 nionths in. preferring fhe appeal is Ition has already been referred in der; however, the delay has not been |fche reasons ass^ned by fhe Director, |;nce to fhe respondent No.-5 io. the Badi worker aad fiirther considering JLan^gaa Badi worker in the same place pie opiaiou ftiat delay of morc thaa 6 |alone caanot be a ground to disentitle apt)oiatment. s, fhere is no fllegality, iafirmily or by fhe Court below waiTaiiting jutisdiction under Article 227 of fhe ^eti^ion disser/es to be disiaissed aad is ad4dssion stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge