HI\ on Hon’\ Writ A93 G COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR \ ’ble Shri Ra‘eev Gu ta C.J. 6n ble Shri ‘Sunil Kumar Sinha J. eal No. 272 'ot 2008 Sushila Tirkey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh_& others ORDER ’ ev Gu ta nble Shri Justice Ra'e Sci/- For consideration \\n Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge (mief Justice Judge Post far order :L; /04/2009 s'd/- sumL KUMAR slNHA ‘ Judge gORAM: H H Ho HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J Writ Appeal No. 272 of 2008 APPLANT Sushila Tirkey, W/o Ripuram Tirkey, PETITIONER Aged about 32 years, Gram Panchayat, Kotchhal, Vikas Khand, Mainpat, Surguja, District Surguja (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary Women and Child Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. District Programme Officer, Women and. Child Welfare Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 3, Project Officer, Women and Child Welfare Department, Mainpat, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Collector (Women and Child Welfare) Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (CG) 5. Satvanti W/o. Shiv Kumar Gupta, Aged about 34 years, R/o Bilaidhondhi, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) At present working as an Anganbadi' worker, Gram Panchayat Kotchhal, Manjhapara, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) 6. Director of Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) (Writ Appeal under Section 2 Sub-Section l 1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court(Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006) Appearance: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents 1 2 ‘3 4 85 6 Mr Shrawan Agrawal Counse for respondent No 5 l EL . M‘s W‘W €23 2 Writ Appeal No. 272 of 2008 ORDER {24 .o4.2oo9) Following order. of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No.6489/2008, whereby, _ the Writ Petition filed by the appellant/petitioner has been dismissed. (2) Facts, briefly stated, areas under:— The appellant and respondent No.5 applied for selection to the post of Anganbadi Worker in Gram Panchayat, Kotchhal, Manjhapara, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Respondent No.5 was appointed on the said post. The appellant filed Writ Petition (S) N0. 719/2007 challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5, which was disposed of by this Court Vide order dated 7.2.2007 directing respondent No.4 to consider the allegations of the appellant/petitioner and decide the matter in accordance with Anganbadi Scheme and law. Respondent No.4 vide order dated 3.5.2007 set aside the appointment of respondent No.5‘and appointed the appellant on the post of Anganbadi Worker. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector? respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before respondent No. 6, which was allowed vide order dated \_ 30.9.2008 and the order passed by the Collector was set aside. 3 Writ Appeal N0. 272 of 2008 Among the others, the Appellate Authority recorded a finding that the appellant/petitioner was not eligible for appointment to the post of Anganbadi Worker as she did not pass Class 8th, whereas respondent No.5 passed 8th Class in first division as a regular student. The said order was challenged in the Writ Petition (S) No. 6489/2008, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that respondent No.5 was eligible for appointment to the post of Anganbadi Worker and the order passed by the Director of Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (respondent No.6) was fully justified. (3) lMr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed that at the relevant time, the appellant/petitioner was not 8th passed, whereas respondent No.5 was 8th passed as a regular student and she was placed in first division. (4) Part—A of the scheme, showing qualifications for appointment to the post of Anganbadi Workers reads as under:— “IIWW/mnwsgm ii IaH W whirl a W Wwmaaamm‘mmwwm EW IWWWadoiW1ooo/~HQT$HW$W938/— qbwmwmmm |Wamafawf§§stmmmiém ml \ (1) 311W.wWwW/Watwwwmwat \\ mmwsadwsitWismm/Wsmw \ \ wwm‘s,m1%§a%awm/Watwmw mowaamml / 4 Writ Appeal No. 272 of 2008 (2) WW¢$WW WW§WwmW wW§§wwmmwwm§ma€m WWWWW$IWW$§WWJ (3) WWW$WWWWQMWWW$W aWWWaWWWW$$WWW @WWW IE§WVWW$WWW aaagaawmaammwmaamhwg WWW1§ WW$WW:WW§(W)§ WW! (4) WWWWWWW§?W$WW$1# Wgwémwmagmmm'WW/W WE§W§f$WW§IWI§W/W$ WWWW§W€IW§l (5) W1§mm/Www%maffwm§awméimm WW§3W$TH$IWWE§WT§¥ (&)WW$%WWWWWI (a) m mmzkmt' (a) mmmmwm$mwmww v. wW§jammargmmmm§Imag mgiaazsm‘mammgmammwm $Wa§maa%agw%magia7wma%ww wwmmaawwmwmmaa W Ha legwwmw1§a€iwmmmaga w§1§fWWWWW$$Waé1wW§ Mfi WMW?WWW€WWWWW WW.W$WWW#®W€MWW$WWW Wm$%w#@mmmma€%w1% WW€H¢§TEWI (7) WM)WWWWW§ I” (5) \ While interpreting the provisions of educational qualifications contained in the said Scheme, a Division Bench of this Court (in which both of us members) held in Writ Appeal No. 104/2007 that “the 8th passed qualification has to be held as an essential basic qualification with specified relaxations as are provided in the scheme and it has to be read only in the said \ sense, otherwise, the entire schemewould render infructuous and N5 5 Writ AQpeaI No. 272 of 2008 1t would not be fu1f11hng the object for Whlch the same has been made There 1s further 1nd1cat1on 1n the scheme to glve due 1mportance to the quahflcatlon because the scheme provides that in no case, illiterate lady has to be appointed on the post of Anganbadi Worker. Therefore, the educational qualifications, with certain relaxations, prescribed in the scheme are ‘essential’ and the word ‘desirable’ has to be read as ‘essential’ for the purpose of scheme”. (6) Admittedly, theappellant/petitioner was not 8th passed and respondent No.5 was 8th passed in first division, therefore, the appellant/petitioner was not having essential basic qualification for appointment to the post of Anganbadi Worker 1n rural area Director Panchayat 1n the appellate order has taken exactly the same V1ew ‘whlle allowmg the appeal of respondent No.5 and setting aside the order of the Collector and the learne Single Judge, declined to interfere with the said order passed by the Director Panchayat. (7) We do not find any infirmity or illegality either in the order passed by the Director Panchayat or the learned Single Judge of this Court. (8) The appeal has no merit, the same is liable to the dismissed ’ and is accordingly dismissed. (9) ’No cost. We. t W, ~,\*in K\#_g a s. C Sd/- Sdl- . . . , Chief . Justice - ‘ , : . Sum] Kumar Judge Smha Judge \3 ’ )»1. d