IN THE__}_II£H COURT OF JUDICA’I'UR_E__AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Writ petition No. "7€§§_/2oo4. W m Smt. Satrupa Kaushika, aged 34 years Wi£e of Shri Devi Prasad'Kaushika, ‘ t r‘ A resident of Mouhadeeha Working as if Angan Badi Sahayika, Tah. Janjgir, " Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), ; Versus l PETIT IONER i RESPONDENTS state of Chhattisgarh I Through : The Collector. Janjgir—Champa (C .G.) 2. Janpad Panchayat, Akaltara Through : The C.E.O., Distt, Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) 3. Pariyojana Adhikari Akikrita Bal Vikash Pariyojana, Akaltara, it Distt. Janjgir—Champa (C.G. ) . 4. Smt. Moti Bai, aged 34 years wife of Shri Krishna Kumar, resident of village Mouhadee‘na, Tah. Janjgir , Distt .Janjgir—Champa‘ (C.G.). .wi is}: ¢ww V'Wi;" i \ w ’wqy/ // ..'''. » a i M 5. Additional Collector, Janjgir—Champa (C G. ) . WRIT PETITIOnN UNDER_AARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IBLDIA, 1950 FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOR OTHER AQPROPRIATE WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER, ORDER‘S, DIRECTION, OR DIRECTIONS l, PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER : As shown above in the cause title. ..... contd. . . . . $7 ’ \ § HIGH COURT GF CHHA’TTISGARH : BILASPUR WRW PETiTiON NO. 7§9 OF 2904 Sm‘t. Sairupa wushika Versus tate 0f hhattisgarh & Oihers S C t f RESPONDENTS (Writ Peition under Article 226 & 2270 the Ccnsiituiion cf india) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri P. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. ii t ca Shri Sueh Dubey, Governmen Advote for the State. ) (Passed on this 31 5 day of arch, 201 1) The petitioner is aggrieved y th order dated 19.022003, b e rwhereunder e responent was appointed on the post of ‘ th d No.4 Anganbadi worer, on the soie ground that the appointment was k iiiegai, as not bing pasd by the an Panchayat. e se Jpad 2. According o the irn oul for the pioner, the impugned t eaed cnse etit orr wa pased by the oject Ofer, lntgrated Bal Vikas de s s Pr hc e Pariyojan, Akaltara. Thus; the order is vitiated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the panel, the respondent No.4 was at serial No.4 and the petitioner was at serial ’ N95. 4. On perusai of the memo dated 29.01.2001, it is evident that the ‘ appointment order should be passed by the Janpad Panchayat. Thus, at the most it may be held that the appointment was not in accordance with iaw. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the name of the petitioner was at seriai No.6 and the name of the respondent No.4 was at serial No.4. Even if, the appointment is held as lilegal, the petitioner may not'be entitied for appointment in place of respondent No.4; because for appointment; the panel is to \ PEiTiONER ORDER (ORAL * M a ,3 ‘4 ' be considered by the Janpad Panchayat and thereafter specific order, has to be passed. Even if, the seriai No.4 goes, there is one more person at serial No.5, he has better ciaim that the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has not impieaded the person Smt. Chhat Bai, as party respondent and the order, even if iiiegai, cannot be quashed at the instance of the petitioner, as there is no order in favour of the petitioner firstly and secondiy the petitioner may not get any reiief out of quashing of the order passed in favour of the respondent No.4. The petitioner has failed to estabiish that on quashing of the appointment of respondent No.4, the petitioner wouid be entitied to any retief, as the petitioner was in the panel recommending candidates, only. The petitioner stood at the bottom. Mere recommendation does not confer any right on the candidate for appointment. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. / )tame Sdl- saggngg Pgnannd Judge ashok