PETITIONER Smt. S about Karyak Panchz Raipur Vs RESPONDENTS 1 . Stat€ Secrete Depart Distt.-] 2. The I Samaj 3. The A Distt—i 4. Th€- P1 and ( Distt:i 5. The ‘ Panch‘ 6. Smt. Satnal Panch‘ Raipu] in e Bench‘ Hon’ble Mr. S J 08.12.2008:- Heard on application da ed‘6- 1 1-2008. The application is allowed and the documents are taken on record. Also heard on admissio. n W.P. [8l No.51 10[ 2008 unita Sahu, W/o Puran Sahu, aged 28 years, Occupation- Aanganbadi arta, Rio Village Semradih, Gram Lyat-Rengadih, Tehsil—Palan', Distt. (CG) of Chhattisgarh, through the 11y, Woman and Child Development, ment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, ?aipux(ce) lirector Panchayat, Panchayat & Sewa; D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) dditional Collector, Baloda Bazar, Qaipur(CG) ‘ogramme/Project 0&061”, Woman )hjld Development Project, Palan', Qaipur (CG) Shief Executive O$ce13 Janpad iyat Palan', Distt. Raipur (CG) Lata Kumari, W/o Ganesh Ram ni, R/o Semradih, Tehsil—Janpad ayat‘ Palari, P.S.-Suhela, Distt. ' (CG) (Petition U/A 226/ 227 of Constitution of India) tice Dhlrendxa Mishra The applications were invited for appointmen of Aangah Badi Workers in Village Semradasll, Gfam Panchayat Rengadih._ The > petitioner, respondent No.6 an? other candidates applied for the post. Gram PanChayat vide resoluti of Annexum-P/3 resolved to appoint the petitioner, The Chief Exec tive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Palari, vide order dated 14-9l2006’ iss ed appointment order of the petitioner Vide Annexure P/4 The Up er Collector, Baloda Bazar Vlde order dated 5 11 2007 (Annexure I8) allowed the appeal preferred by '7 respondent No.6, set as1de ap Ointment of the petitioner and d1rected to take necessary steps ac‘ording to rules for appointment of ‘ , respondent No.6 on that post. The petitioner’s revision against the orderof the Collector has I been further rejected by the impugned order dated 20-5-2008 (Annexure-P/ 1). Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Collector as well as of the Director Panchayat on the ground that the petitioner 1s class— 10 pass anc as such more qualified candidate than respondent No 6 appeal nldd by respondent No 6 on 31 1 2007 against the resolution of the Panchayat and against appomtment order dated 14—9-2006 is barred by limitation, however, the appeal was entertained without condonini the delay So far as Objection o the petitioner regarding limitation 1s concerned, nom the documents filed along With the petition as also application for\ taking documents on records, it transpires that respondent No.6 in'her application for condonation of delay in nling appeal (Annexure-P/ 11) has stated that she learnt about the appointment [of the petitioner on 31-1-2007 when she made enquiries i mmmm 'Z, mm Janpad Panchayat Palari'. cancelled on 21-9-2006 on 00 Standing Committee dated 10- 1‘ Keeping in View the above fact, for hearing vide order dated 26-2 ' Both the Courts below ref: appointment of Aangan Badi Wo women are to be given highe thereafter women living below p< to be given preference. Since res S’I‘, her name appears in the list prepared for persons belonging to the poverty line, as she has 3.070 hectares of land, the Courts below have guidelines issued for appoinun t of the Aangan Badi Worker. There is no illegality or infirmity or 'urisdictional error committed by the Additional Collector or Directo Panchayat in passing the impugned orders. The petition being wi ut any substance is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismi Sd/- _ ' Dhirendra'Mishra L 1x l ' ' Judge kx i below poverty line whereas, 1 backward class and her name held that respondent No.6 was i as Aangan Badi Worker. In the considered opini reconied by both the Courts Appointment of the petitioner was mplaint. However, by resolution of 3-2006 her appointment was restored. the Collector has admitted the appeal ~2007.- :rring to guidelines dated 6-1-2000 for rkers have held that widow] deserted st priority in the appointment and )verty line and belonging to SC/ ST are ipondent No.6 is awoman belonging to he petitioner is a woman of other does not appear in the list of below :ntitled for preference for appointment n of this Court the above finding elow is strictly in accordance with ssed at the admission stage itself.