IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CIHHATTISGARH AT ' BILASPUR : ca?) 1 ‘WRIT PETITION (a) NO. é g 88 OF 2009 V/ i W 3E“6§‘§ ‘ PETITIONER W I Smt Koushaiya, W/Q Mukesh Gond, aged about 25 years, Caste-60nd, R/o Siriyakhoh, DiStt. Kcrea (C.G.) VER$U$ RESPONDENTS 1: /‘ State of Chhattisgarh through : Secretary Women & Child Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Development Officer, Women & Child Development Department, Manendragarh Distt. Korea (C_.G.) I Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pa‘nchayat, Manendragarh Distt. Korea (C.G.) V Additional Collector, Manendragar Distt. Korea (C.G.) Smt. Kavita, Wfo Shri Sunil Kumar, Caste- OBC, R/o Siriyakhoh, ' Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) @ @ g WRIT PETIT ON NDE ARTICLE 227 OF THE C NSTITUT ON OF INDI APPROPRI TE WRIT WRITS DIREQTION l DIRECTgONS §T§. FOR ISS ANCE OF ORDER ORD Rs gis‘; HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra ’ wxnitPeaition 227 No. 6288/2009 PETITIONER Smt Koushaiya ‘ Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others RESPONDENTS N Aggearance: Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for- the petitioner. Shli AkhiIeSh Kumar, counsel for respondent No.3. Shn' D.N. Praiapati, counsel for respondent No.5; Shn' Ajay DwiVedi; ‘ Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No1, 2 and 4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE M CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (06.12.2010) Petitioner has called in question the order passed by the respondent No.3 on 4/09/2009 appointing the respondent No.5 as Anganbadi Worker. V” (2) The facts of the case, in short, are that the Gram Panchayat Chiraipani initiated short listing of candidates for appointment to the adi Worker for Auganbadi Centre, Siriyakoh. The petitioner as Weil as respondent No.5 along with one K11. Rekha applied for the post and their name was included in the list of It appears from the appellate order of Additional Collector, Annexure P—2 that initially respondent No.5 was selected Vii but on 28/03/2006 she was declared disqualified on the ground that has been elected as Panch of the concerned Gram post of Anganb candidates. \ i’her husband ,(ip’ ‘ . Panchayat. Appointment letter was issued in favour of petitioner o 12/07/2006 Vide Annexure P—3. (3) The respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before Additional Collector inter alia submitting that her husband resigned from the post on 28/03/2006 and she is more suitable candidate than the petitioner, therefore appointment of petitioner cannot be sustained. The Additional Collector by its order dated 26/05/2008 allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 and directed initiation of fresh process of appointment after giving preference to a widow/destitute in accordance with the policy prevalent in the year 2006. After this appellate order was passed the impugned order Annexure P-l has been issued by the respondent No.3 on 4/09/2009. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the impugned order Annexure P—l should not have been passed as there was no such direction issued by the appellate authority for issuing order of appointment in favour of respondent No.5. She would also submit that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and she has not been heard before issuing the order of appointment or before placing the matter before Additional Collector. (5) Learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the interim order; would submit that the respondent No.5 was more ///:‘7 suitable to the post, therefore the order Annexure P-l does not call for v gany interference. It is also submitted that the petitioner has an /. n v3~ alternative remedy of filing an appeal befare the Additional Collector. (6) 0n perusal of Annexure R—l filed by the concerned Janpad Panchayat it would appear that in column ll of the said list it is mentioned against the name of respondent No.5 that her husband is a Panch of the Gram Panchayat. Inits reply fxled before the Additional Collector (Annexure P-I2) the Janpad Panchayat has stated that during course of recruitment no communication submitting resignation or accepting his resignation was submitted with regard to respondent No.5 ’s husband. (7) The Additional Collector, accepted the plea ofresponclent No.5 and set aside the appointment of petitioner. However; no direction for appointment of respondent No.5 was issued by the appellate authority. (8) On a scrutiny of Annexure P-l, it would appear that after the appellate order was passed by the Additional Collector on 26m May, 2008, the Assistant Project Officer, Manendragarh produced the tile i along with a note sheet before Additional Collector on which some noting was made on. 12/08/2009 and therealter the Janpad Panchayat issued the order on 4/09/2009. (9) From this it would be clear that the appellate authority after /k having exercised its appellate power has again summoned the tile and ‘ iinade some endorsement. The said tile and the noting placed before r Additional Collector by the Assistant Project Ofllcer has not been placed before this court. (10) It appears some noting was made by the Additional Collector regarding appointment of respondent No.5 and acting on that noting the appointment order has been issued. It is strange as to how the appellate authon'ty after passing the appellate order and after having become functus—offlcio could have made some note on the file presumably directing the Janpad Panchayat to issue order of appointment in favour of respondent No.5. Even otherwise, from the appellate order itself it would appear that when the process of appointment was continuing in the month of March 2006 the husband of respondent No.5 was a Sarpanch and the Janpad Panchayat has never received any letter of resignation issued by the husband of respondent No.5. Even on this date the respondent No.3 Janpad Panchayat is not in position to inform this court as to Whether a&er passing of the appellate order fresh process of appointment was initiated or not. {11) For all the above found infirmities and more particulary the note made by the Additional Collector after disposing of the appeal this court is satisfied that the plea of alternative remedy raised by respondent No.5 is not acceptable as the impugned order has been passed in complete disregard pf the appellate order passed by the ,///'\.l Additional Collector and the file was placed before the appellate I , / \ authority before issuance ofthe impugned order.