^^•f^^ INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUmCATURECHHAmSGARHAT BILASPUR W.P. (S)NO.^%Z/ 2006 Petitioner <;.T>.^! 'A^-"" Respondents /- Smt. Leelavati, W/pSri Indra Prasad, 19 years, .o c^^. R/o Vill. Ghindiya, Teh. Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja Versys 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretaiy, Women 8s Child Development Deptt. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^•K •'<-/ &' 3,. The Collector, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja. ^^ 'a G'U^ ^ G. / The Prograiilme/Project Officer, Women & Child Developinent Project, Ramanuj Nagar, Distt. Sarguja. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpat Panehayat, Ranaanuj Nagar, Distt. Sarguja. WRTT PETmON U/A 226 / 227 €tFTHE OONSTrTUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 +11*1MI Sh*11<») T5?^irai?PT, ®Tn+i'i6,ficiiyy ^^ .^^,.^^..\ ^ 200^ sTi^T'ra^ ('^3^?) a.n^T^rf^ira; OTT3TR?Tsbt|lf ^RiTWflf^TSn^T 25-8-2006 Shri Ptafulla Bharat Shri Satish Gupita, D' No.l to 3, on advanee copy Heard. The main grievanGe o though she is working as the pref^rential treatment Badi Karyakarta, the posf Vlllage Chlndlya, Tehsll petitA^ner Further case of the on the sald post no Aanga(i been selected, the on the ground ttoat the wij father-ln-law is aPanch, as Aangan Sadi KaryaIcarfeBJ liearned coiansel for petitlemer does nefe eome roember of Paneh. as sueh, se illegal. In the submltted that the reia-esentatlon to reBpondei^t and in turn, he be directee? decide the same, to E whl.ci objeetion.; Having heard learned lEegard to the facts and ei |expressing any eptolon on 1s allowed toia make a •til'iltcl'ifl-f WRTf ff tecd' (f^RZIT ^i STf^ff 3II^?T counsel for the petitloner. /•.G.A. for the State/respondents the petitloner is that even S^ih Sahayika, she is entitled for for the appplntment of Aangan whi.ch was advertlsed for the purajpur, District Surguja. ^etitj.ener is that even though Badi Karyakarta or any body has 's case has not been eonsidered :e of eldei* brother of h± her :herefore. she cannot be appelnted ^ ^he petitiener submifeted ttoat the tithla the deflnltion e£ family 1;he aetlon of respondents is per counsel for tbe petitloner may be allowed to make a no.4 ratsing the sSsave grievances to consider the above fact and ^i eouiael for respondents bas no cArcuitis tances petiti4>ner eouisel for the parties and havin^ t-cumstances of theease, and without ^he merifi of tbe case, the petitlone^ det^iled representation along with a P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^ "41<<1<'1<4, BTfi'M'IS, (sKtWy HTtfC'nsti^lcb ^200 an^Tira'gi' (yt^°«yT) 3n^T?iTR-fi<<> c^TT3TT^Tst>^tl<t> y^-\ s. ?RTRK ^rf^T STI^T -2- copy of this writ petltion| grlevances withln a perlo| respondait No.4 is directl period of 30 days from th ation, after considering In an objective manner, i| WJ.th the dlrection al dlsposed of. In view of this ordei Aisposed of. c.c. as per Rules. to respondent No.4 raisigg all her |3 of 10 days from today and in turn, |ed to decide the same within a ^ date of receipt of the represent- ^llthe points ralsed by the petltion^ |i accordance with law. |Eoresald, the petition stands (:, M.(W.)P. No.3447/2006 also stands •sbliltd'fl-f 11*<ci)'fftecA'<Rl+&K ^siRliTsn^r Sd/- L.< Judge P.T.O. ;'ni