_@~ ( )6®;—* IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ICHHATTISGARH[ WRIT PETITIOMS) No.‘ é 3L4 /2oo7. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE R“ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PETITIONER: *§Bit. Meena Bai, wife of Ram Bhafan, Wyaryg xx// and aged Post about Madmada, 25 years, Block'Bodla, residence of District Village k Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS }. State of Chhattisgrah, through Secretary, Department of Woman and Child Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhavvan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. “2. Collector, Kabirdham, Oflice situated at $R Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, 1 Chhattisgarh. §x®a The Chie'f Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. g4? District Woman and Child Development ,5? Smt. Saroj Bai, wife of Shiv RAm Nagwansi, aged about 24 years, residence of Village and Post Madmada, Block Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. C) r Officer, Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. " X ‘ ' ‘ M HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri swish K. Agniho‘h'i, J. w. P. (s&. s74 OF 2007 Pe'ri‘rioner : Smf. Meena Bai Versus Respondents : Smi’e of Chhaffisgarh & ofhers. 5hr! Om P Sahu counsel for The pe‘hftoner Smf AnJu AhuJa Deputy Govemmenf Advoca're for fhe respondems No 1 2 and 4 ORDER (Passed on 6’" day of February, 2007) 1. Learned counsel appearing for The pefifioner submi'rs fhaf fhe pefi‘fioner was working as Aanganwadi Worker in village Madmuda, Block - Bodla, Disfricf - Kabirdhamiln her place, me respondenf No. 5 has been appointed as Aanganwadi Worker which is illegal and improper. 2. The fads in nu'fshellare fha'l’ inifially The pefifioner (Sm'l. Meena Bai ), who belongs 1'0 casfe ‘Mahar' i.e. Scheduled Cas'l’e and having passed 8*“ Class exomina+ion wi'rh 46.5%, was appoinfed as Anganbacli Worker in village Madmada, vide order da‘l'ed 8.11.2006 (Annexure P/Z). Feeling aggrieved, fhe respondenf No. 5 (5m1'. Saroj Bai) filed an objecfion before fhe Addifional Collecfor, Kabirdham which was registered as Revenue Case No. 42-8—12! year 2006-07, wherein vide order dared 30.12.2006 (Annexure P/1), i'r was held ‘rhaf offer enquiry if was found 1ha+ bo‘l’h fhe oandida'l'es belong To Scheduled Caste, bo'rh are rela'red fo 'l'he family beiow nae pmm line (BPL) and bow have passed 8*“ class examination bu'r in fhe 8*“ class examine-hon +he responden'f No 5 obfained 57% marks, which is higher +hen 'rhe marks obfainzd by the pe‘ri‘rianer. In the result ‘rhe appainfmen‘r of fhe> pefifionzr was directed To be cancellad and it was directzd +0 issue fhe appointmem' order- in favour of fhe respondem' No.5. Learned counsel for The pe'ri'l'ioner- confended fho'f fhe pefi'rioner is more meriforious ‘H'Ien The responden'i' No.5, as ihe pe'fi‘i’ioner is educa'red up To class 9*“. In fhe guidelines issued by 'fhe Women and Child Developmenl’ Department Governmen+ of Chhoi'lisgorh vide memo No. 1855 da'i’ed 12.12.2005, in regard 'l'o 'rhe appointmen‘r of Anganbadi Workers and Anganbadi Assistoms, clause 6 provides for priori'iy +0 +he candidates of clause 8’“ and in case 8m class pass women is no'l available only fhen The candidaTes having higher secondary quaiificafion would be given appoinTmenT. Clause 6. of The memo reads as under:- "s. mmmm$mmwme§ wmmmiawwmmnsisméim wweegeaewi $wémwwmm§ml¥mmn wxihma‘lmi” Having heard learned counsel for The peTiTioner and having gone Through The records‘ iT is clear That The candidaTes having more marks in class 8*“ examinaTion cerTificaTe have been given preference To oThers even Those who are having higher qualificaTion. The peTiTioner is noT in a posiTion To poinT ouT any such infirmiTy in The order impugned which may call for inTerference from This CourT exercising The exTra ordinary jurisdicTion under ArTicle 226 of The ConsTiTuTion of India. The wriT peTiTion is accordingly dismissed summarily. No order as To cosTs. x Sdl- l Judg¢ l Satish K. Agnihotri iakur