K-HC—78 '^^T'^T^Jcb ^^? ^H^T ^^i^i 'S^ ^l^i^R, ^tD-H'Ko', fstdl-y^ ^^^^.......R£.^...A..J.^^^ W§WT^^ (^e!?^^) F^T^R ^rft?T 31^ PETITIONER Appellant Smt. Kuma! Tahisi RESPONDENT3 1. State Defendants •Mantrai 2. The Dir (CG) Collectc DJstrict Dsvelo? 3. 4. Tahsil-i Writ Petitlon uoder Ar S,,B. Hon'bie Shri Dhirendra.M 07-61-2008 Shri Jltendra Gupta, coyrjsei Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Ad^? '^prt^f^ ^RTsy^f ^ f^x^ Tf^5R ^^HW^l 1-ilrondj Bai Madhukar. W/o Shri Rupendra r| aged about 20 ysars, R/o VIISage Keshdabri, •jBeria, Distt. Durg (CG) .Versus |>f Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Departr^sent of Woman and ChiJd Development l^ya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (CG) r^ctor Panchayat, State of Chhattlsgarh, Raipur |r, District Durg (CG) Programme Officer Women and Chjid |ment Panch Buliding, DistS. Durg (CG) 5. Project pfficer, VVomen and Chlld Project, Ofrice'Beria, erja, Distt. Durg (CG) 6. . Smt. Sjjnita @ Sewatl, W/o Manoj Kumar, DEiobhi, aged a^oui 25 years, R/o Vjjiag.e Keshdabri, Tah. & Block ^sria, Dlstt.'Durg C(G) :ide 227 of the Constitytion of sel for the petitioner. ?ocate Genera! forthe State< Thls is directe<| the order of Annexure P-1 dated 2,.9:2008 by the Direct4' Panchayat, whereby the appeal preferred by the petltioner under Section 91j of the Panchayat Raj Adhlniyarrs against the order dated 14,3.,2007 passe(| dlsmissed., by the Collector, Durg , has been further ^^3^.. /^:"wy\ i 'iigi^^ 1 l'?all ^^^tC-78 n(<^>^..,..^., •^^?^ 'S^ '^I^Krt^, ©lll-H'Ko,fs|(rll>(-iy HW^fT^W^ "e^ 200 'STT^I "3ET f^N? ^IT W^T ^»fl^ i ^l ^IT^T ^^K (^^V^) I^TTW^rfN^^T -2- The grievance of the pe' appolntment as Aanganbadi Wcjrker of viliage Keshdabri, Tahsii- Berla oniy on the ground that she does not be the respondent No»6 has be^i appointed though she belongs to O..B,.C. ^ategory and In the matter of ^ppointment preference is to be glven to the persons who belong to schedyl^d caste category. Learned counse! for the Ra^han Card in the name of hel document, he has been shov^ However, because of his deathl entered as she was head of tl been erroneousiy disbeiieved b^ to establish that she belongs tq' has fa.iied to establlsh that sh' recorded by the Director Panchi avaljable on record and the sarrje Is finding offact. Since both the Courts b4! petitioner does not belong to 8 ^OTf^h> "^R^f ^ fe^ T^5K ^3tfN^T^T itioner is that the petitioner has been denied [ong to category of below poverty line, whereas [petitioner submits tha.t the petitioner had filed grand father-in-law Tarachand and in the sald ^n as person beionging to BP,L, category. the na.me of her mother-in-!aw Bhanvati was ae fami!y. However, the above document has both the Courts below. Heard. From perusal of the iiT^ugned order,. it is manifestly dear that the DJrector Panchayat after consid^ring the documents produced by the petitioner B.P.L. category, has heid that the documents in question is suspicious docur^ent and not worth reliance and the petltioner beEongs to BP,L, category and accordjngly upheid the order of Collector afid dismissed the appeal. The above finding is yat is based on proper appreciation of materia! low by a concurrent findj'ng have heid that the PL. category^.no Interference is caSled for in this petition^ Petition Is accordingiy di^missed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge