HIGH COURT OFCHHATriS@ARHAT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRt RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRI SUNiL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant/ Respondent No. 6 Writ Aopeal No. 47 of 2009 Snrrt. tshwari Shrawan Panda, aged about34 yeare, W/o. Shri Shrawan Panda, resldent of Village-Garhumaria, Tahsil smd Distrtet Raigarh (C.G.) Respondents Petitioner Versus 1. 2. Smt. Savlta. Manoj Kumar, W/o. Manoj Kumar, aged about 28 years, R/o. Vltlage-Garhumaria, Tahsil and Distrfet Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Office Women & Chiki Welfare Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Panchayat, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Collector, District Raigarh (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pusaur, District Ra^arh (C.G.) Development Officer, Chlld Development Project, Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) Ku. Rajkumari, D/o Shaukilal, Smt. Sun'rta, W/o. Om Prak^h Respondents 7 and 8 resident of Village-Garhumaria, TahsW and District Raigarh (C.G.) WRn- APPEAL UNDERSECTION 2 OFTHE C.G. HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHl ACT. 2006 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Present : Smt Hamida Siddiqui, counsel fortheappellant. Shri Sumesh Bafaj, GovernmentAdvocate forthe State / respondents No.2 to4 & 6. "-=•-•''1-ip1g /K^ il;:'i*'3F"'"?^..~" 'VgLsSS^ ^ ^^J '%^? 2 TZ ^1^> >th Judament (18m February, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rqeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the partles are heard on admission. 2) Appellant Smt tshwari Shrawan Panda, who was respondent No.6 in the writ pet'rtion has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 30.01.2009 passed in WP (S) No.7034/2008. 3) Respondent No.1 Smt Savita Manoj Kumar had flled the writ petition for the following reliefe : "(i) This Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record relating to the case of petitloner. (ii) This Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue a wrtt in nature of certiorari/mandamus and set-aside the order dated 21-10-2008 passed by the Respondent No.2. (iii) This Hon'ble Court may Mndly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 S 3 to allow the petitioner to be continued in service. (iv) Any other order or direction whichever the Hon'ble Court may find frt in the faets anct ground of the case may kindly be given." 4) The matter relates to the appointment of Anganwadi Worker in Gram Panchayat Garhumaria, District Raigarh. 5) In response to the advertisemenVncrtice invitlng applications for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker in the Gram Panchayat Garhumaria, District Raigarh, appellant Smt Ishwari Shrawan-Panda and respondentNo.1 Savita ManojKumar atso submitted their applications along with other apptiGants. The Gram PanchayatGarhumaria, District Raigarh, after scrutiny of the applications, reGommended the name of respondent No.1 Smt Savita Manoj Kumar Tor appointment on the post ofAnganwadi Worker. TheChief ExecutiveOfficer, Raigarh, however, appointed appellant Smt Ishwari Shrawan Panda as Anganwadi Worker for Gram Panchayat Garhumaria, District Raigarh. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 Smt Savita Manoj Kumar filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Raigarh challenglng the appointment of appellant Smt IshwariShrawan Panda as Anganwadi Worker. The Additional Collector, Raigarhvldeorder datal 04.10.2008, allowed the appeal and set aside the appointmentof appellant Smt Ishwari Shrawan Panda and remandedthe matter to the Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh with a direction to appoint deserving candidate. Appellant's appointment was set aside on the ground that at the time of her appointment her 'Jeth' was Panch of Gram Panchayat Garhumaria and as such herappointmentwas bad in law in view of Section 40 and 69 of the Act. Appellant Ishwari Shrawan Panda challenged the order passed by the Add'rtional Collector, Raigarh by Tiling a Revision Petition before the Dlrector, Panchayat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, The Director, Panchayat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh vkle order dated 21.10.2008, allowed the Revlsion Petition and set aside the order dated 04.10.2008, passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh. It was this order dated 21.10.^)08 passed by the Dlrector, Panchayat, Raipur, Chhatti^arh which was impugned in the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 Smt Savita Manoj Kumar. ^ 6) The sole question involved in the writ petition and the present appeal is that whether the definitions given to the expression 'relative' in Explanation-1 to sub Section (1) of Section 69 and .<y. —SA» ^•"^£:V^ Ar^' r ^••^'s'ss g^^\'v: Exptanation-11 tosyb Section (1) of Section 40 ofthe Panchaysrt Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, the Act'), would Inctude 'Jeth' also? 7) Learned Single Judge while holding that the word 'Devar' in the note/explanation appended to Sections 40 and 09 will include 'Jeth' also.observed in para 13: " 13. it is atso not in dispute that husband's elder brother is called 'Jeth' of his wife, whereas, younger brother te called her' 'Devar", in common parlance. However, since reference to Devar & Jeth both are to the brothersof husband, it can safely be interpreted that intention of the L^fislature in using the expresslon 'Devar' in SecUons 69 & 40 ofthe Act, 1993 is in reference to brother of husband of a lady and not to the restricted interpretation that it refers to only younger brother of the husband and the word 'Devar' includes Jeth alsQ." 8} Smt Hamida Siddiqul, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that tearned Single Judge has erred in adding words in the explanation to Sections 40 and 69 crf theAct, whlchwere not used by the Legislature. Leamed counsel submitted that theCourts white interpreting a provislon of law cannot re-write the provlsion or add words not included by the Legislature. 9) It is not in dispute that at the relevant time, appellant's Jeth was a member of Gram Panchayat, Garhumaria, Di^rict Raigarh. 10) The main object in incorporating theprovlsion prohibiting the appointment of a relative of an elected or nominated member of ^. padma Gram Panchayat Is to ensure (i) faimess and impartlality in the appointments in Gram Panchayat; and (ii) that the elected and nominated membere of Gram Panchayat do not-use their official position for securing employment to their relatives. 11) In this part of the Country, elder brother of a lady's husband is called 'Jeth', whereas younger brother of husband Is called 'Devar". Thus, it is apparent that 'Devar' and 'Jeth' both are equally related to a lad/s husband as his brother. When the Leglslature prohibited the appointment of a candidate whose 'Devar* is a Panchof Gram Panchayat, then how a candldate whose 'Jeth' is a Panch ofGram Panchayat can be legally appolnted. 12) On due consideration of the submissions of tearned counsel for the appellant, in the above context, we aresatlsfied that the leamed Singte Judge has nghtly interpreted the ExplanaUon to Sections 69 and 40 ofthe Act, so as lo include 'Jeth' alsoamong the category of the relatives mentioned in the Explanation. 13) We, theref(?re, do not flnd any sub^ance in the submis^ons of leamed counsel for the appellant. 14) As we do not find any tnfirmity In the impugnedl order, the writ appeal is liabte to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismj^sedsummarily^ ^Lr,. . sd/- Sd/- U SUNILKUMAR SINHA ChiefJustiee ^ Judge •t • : ' •••—:^•—•• - -—-..