^\[ MIGHCQUR^OFCHW^i^iSG^RHj^BllJ^m^ SiNGS-E BENCH 1 HON'BLBl^RS SUNfL KUJVJ^R^S^ WntPetitibn(S^!lSl0.5293of^010. Petitioner: ResDOndenfs: Srint. Pitar Bai,i VWo Pyare^^^^^^L i{^el,^gedaboufe 2^ ^ars^^^^^R^ IVillage : RarSadakala, 'Tahsil: iSakti, District |danjgjr Champa '^^^^^^^^^^^^ •t::.\''-,^'.:l:l;.'':.;-;\:f.''.:,^ iVe|rsuSI;;:<l'l::.^:''^ Statie|pf Chhatti|gath, I'hRoygh : The Secretary, Nahjla.Avvam Ba^ Xikas^ ^ Vibl^, ^ J||K.S.8}iawai^yRajpur^@^^^^ ,l:iaipur;l(^,^^,:^,,'i::^'::^.:1:^ ^he 1 Con|nii||©n|r,^^^^?^ Bilaspur,DJstriet:BiJaspur(e.G.). The Aclditjonal Collector, Janjgii', DrStrictJanjgfts($ham^^ .;i.-::^^.l'.iA^:Ii'!..:-.^:/ Chief ;Executivej Otfice, Janpad ^lanchayat, ^akti, ^jstn^anjgir ,ebampa^G,^j } Project^cer, ^atiila^am^Bal \/ikas, Vi^ag,| Slkt^ Sakti, Distnc^ IJanjgir ^ ^C.'G.);''',,^;^ Smt. 13ushpa^Sahu,|VV/61?ranff ,lL.a!^S'aby.,'^a^d|abc|rt:t28.^ea^ F^oVillage: Parisadikala.^hsii Sakti^ Di$tncA Janlgir Champa .ife©t:j::.;.l:^l':^:,:^ WRlfPETI^NONDiR^RT'ICt.E 226^27 G^ C^NSTITUriONQBiMD!^. 'IP!Ssent^-.l^,'^,^,.;:".fr^.:;ll;^:/^ Mr.^.K.f3atel,Advocatefw Mr.^itSingh, Panel l-a^ andi5;on.l,advancel:G6py..-^'\^''-::r^:^,' ^m ^^ORD^I^?.;-:1-^-'^-,";^' (15th September,2610) Heard on admjssion. 2) Petitioner Smt. Pitar Bai has filed this wnt petition for the N!owing;reliefs;.:.',.,;'.1:..'/-;.;. .:<;1,^.^ "10J That, this Hon'ble Court may kindlycall^fo^ the entire recbrd in relates to the case of the '::-:^':.petitioner..-,;,\: :\:..:'^ 1Q.2 ^hat, this Hpn'ble^^a^^ issued a writ or writs/ordeiy orbrdersto^^ orderdated11.06.2Q10^rinexuFe P-1) is6ued byth^^^ respondeN N<3.2, and further be quashed^^^^^W dated 23,Q4.2QrlO passeclby.theMditional G JarijgirtDistnct^anjg{r-Champa(©.^(AnnexureP/2).^ 10.3 That, this ^ori'bl^ Court may kindly be issued a writ Orwrits/ order/ OF drd^e^^ appo|ntroentQrderdated31.01.2QQ9(AnnexureP/3)^^ issyed in favour of^^^^^^ Panehayat, Saktt, District : Janjgir Qhampa (C.G.). and further be allow the petitioner on^t^ Anganbadj KaFyakarta, atAanganbadi Gen^^^ Chowk, Parsadakala, Tahsil Sakti, District^^ J^ ;Champa(e.G.).i.':',;:';l'l;;,,'!' 10,4 That, any crth^r relief, this Mon'ble^^^^^^^ deem fit and proper may also^kindly begFantetftot^^^^ petjtioner, intlTieinterest-ofjustice."^ 3) The petitioner, thus in substanee, is praying f©rcjuashing of theorderdated 11.0^2010, passedbytheCommissjoher^B Diviston, Bilaspur (Annexure-P/1^ and order d passedtheAdditi6na!Collector,JanjgirCl^mpa(^^ I'll :;,w ^•^^' j \ nm ^'K 4) Byorderdated 3^.01.2009 (Annexure-P/3),thepetitioner was appointed as Aanganbadi ^^rker.^^^^^^^^H was chalienged by respondent No.6 Smt. Pushpa Sahu by^^^^^^^ appeaIbefbretheAdditipnalCptiectpr,whichcametpberegistere^ as Appeal Gase No.06/A-89(1 ^)/2008-09. ^The| said appeat was allowed by •fche Additional Collector vide order jdatea 23.04.201 O and the appointment ofthe p^itioner to the po^ VVorker we^ cancelled and it was di Cted thals^^^^^^re^ Smt. Rushpa Sahu shall be appoirled as Aanganbadi Worker. The sajd cmder^^^ obtained?more mari^thanMie.petjti^ be mOFemeritoFious.^l'hec^er^issedb^ wasfurtherchaliengeclinanotherappealbeforetheCommi^siQner, Biiaspur DivisiQn, Bilaspur ^ registered as Appeai (Pancl^ayat) Case N0.160/A-89/09-10. The said appeal filed by the petitioner before the (pommissioner was dismissed and the prder passed by the AdditionaliCoilectorwas confirmed. 5) Mr. P.K. Patel, learned counsel for the petjtioner su^mits that the orders passed by the two authorities were not;in accordance with law, therefore, the cancellation of appointmentof the petjtioner to the post of Aanganbadi Workerwas not justified. j 6) After going throygh the contents of the tWQlorders passed by the sasd authorities, it is clear that reslpondent No.6 Smt. Pushpa Sahu Qbtained more marks than the petrtioner^ time pftheir selection to fhe post ofAanganbadiWorkeraneieven after getting more marks by respondent No.6 Smt. Pushpa Sahu, she was not appointed and thelappointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner. The 'authorjties have considered that according to the marks aiiocated to the candldates, respondent No.6 Smt. Pushpa Sahu should have been appointed as Aanganbadi Worker on the IroUnd that sheihad secured more marks fhanthepetitioner.^lt is on this account, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelSed and it was directed that respondent No^ Smt. Pushpa Sahu shali be appointed as Aanganbadi Worker. 7) After going through the errtire materjal aYajlable on record, 1 do not find any jnfjrmity in tfte ord^rs passed byjthe two authorities. The petition has no merit. The same is iiabie to be dismissed and is herebydismissedsummarjiy. 8) There shalj be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ :|Uli:^