v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B8LASPUR DIViSiON BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Petitioner/ Aopejlant Respondents Writ Appeal No.180 of 2008 Smt. Ansuiya Bai, W/o Late Shri Pyarelal Mandavi, Aged about 24 years, Occupatton - Worker of Aanganbadi, R/o Gujara, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Smt. Kamini Bai, W/o Sundarlal Sahu. Aged about 24 years, R/o Gujara, Tahsil - Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Project Officer, Woman and Children Development Samittee, Janpad Panchayat, Dondi, Tah. Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dondi, Tahsil - Batod, Dlstt. Durg (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Mantralaya, D.K.S. Btowan, Raipur, Distl. Raipur (C.G.) 5. Collector, Durg (C.G.) 6. Director of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) ofthe ChhattiscRirh Hiah Court {Appeal to Division BenchS Act. 2006 Present : Shri HP Agrawal, counsel for the appetlant. Shri N K Agrav</al, Deputy Advocate General for the State / respondents No.2 & 4 to 6. JUDGMENT (21st August,2008) The following Judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. sa'\ 1 W^M •'^^'^ ^^^ ^^sss^'' Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Appellant - Smt Ansuiya Bai has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 18.07.2008 passed in WP No.963/2005. 3) Appellant - Smt Ansuiya Bai had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "I. That the order of Learned Court below should be cancelled. II. That, the petitioner is working as a worker of Anganbadi during to pendency of case before court below did not pay by respondent no.3 to pay the petitioner. 111. That, the appointment order to confirm in favour of the petitioner." 4) The petitioner, thus, in substance was seeking quashing of the order dated 11.01.2005 passed by the Director, Panchayat Chhattlsgarh, Raipur in case No.18/A-89/03-04, whereby the Revision petition filed by the appeltant against the orderdated 04.08.2003 passed bythe Additional Collector, Durg in appeal No.37-A 89 / 01 -02 was dismissed. 5) Appellant - Smt Ansuiya Bai was appointed as AnganwadS Karya Karta by Janpad Panchayat, Dondi, vide its resolution dated 18.03.2002. Her appointment was confirmed by the Chief Executive Offlcer, Janpad PanchayErt, Dondi, vide order dated 22.03.2002. The appellant's appointment was challenged by one ofthe un-successful candidates before the Additional Coltector, Durg on the ground that, inspite of more qualifled candidates being available for appointment, the Janpad Panchayat had appointed appellant - Ansuiya Bai, who was less qualifled than the other .^•i-^'T^^ ^ "" ^ 1 ® candidates. The Addttional Collector, Durg found from the records of the Janpad Panchayat itself that candidates having passed 8th standard were avaiiable for appointment and even then, the Janpad Panchayat appointed Ansuiya Bai, who admittedly passed on!y 7th standard. On the above finding, the Additional Collector, Durg passed order dated 04.08.2003, whereby the appellant's appointment to the post of Anganwadl Karya Karta was quashed and the Janpad Panchayat was directed to hold fresh selection for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karya Karta. The Director, Panchayat in the revision petition flled by the appeltant against the order of the Additional Collector, Durg, afflrmed the order dated 04.08.2003 while dismissing the appellant's revision p^ition vide order dated 11.01 .2005. 6) The learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsel for the (^rties, did not find any ground for interference in exerclse of the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned orderdated 18.07.2008. 7) Shri HP Agrawai, tearned counsel for the appeltent vehemently argued that the Additional Gollector, Durg and Dlrector Panchayat had erred in quashing the appellant's appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karya Karta as the other candidates wAio were more qualified than the appellant were not otherwise eligible for appointment. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has also erred in not giving due weight to the i' i'^^^ submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitloner and in dismissing the appellant's writ petition. 8) Shri NK Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State on the other hand supported the orders passed by the Additional Coliector, Durg & Director, Panchayat. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; the grounds mentioned in the orders passed by the Additionai Collector, Durg and Director, Panchayat; and the material available before us, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Additional Coilector, Durg and the Director, Panchayat, whereby theappellant's appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karya Karta was quashed and the Janpad Panchayat, Dondi was directed to hold fresh selection for the post of Anganwadi Karya Karta. 10) So far as the appellant's prayer No.2 in the writ petition for payment of salary for the period she was allowed to work is concerned, the respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the appellanVpetitioner worked till January, 2004 and was paid all her dues, up to the said period. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to certaln documents indicating that work was taken from the appetlant, even after January, 2004. 11) In our opinion, it would be appropriate for the appellant to make a detailed representation to respondent No.3 in regard to payment of salary due, if any. 12) With the above observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of. __^—— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Chief Justice (^Sw^c