L ^ V IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [S] N0. /O^"? 12007 fS.B.f PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^^^^•^': -....- ^C^!^^ ^••••^^'-^'T^^ Smt. Savitri Bai wife of Uttam, aged abouf 22 years, resident of village Kunwa, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham [C.G.]. VERSUS -^I] The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Mahila Avam Bal Vikas Vibhag, C.G. Raipur. «t (9",t»B ^^ %^•<^ -2] 3] ^] -5] The Collector/Additional Collector, Kabirdham [C.G.]. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham [C.G.]. The Project Officer, Mahila Avam Bal Vikas, Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham [C.G.]. ^- Smt. Yashoda Bai wife of not know, aged about 25 years, Resident of village- Kunwa, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham [C.G.). ^-.- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA s' HIi^-f COURT OF CHHATTESeARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition {S) No. 1039 of 2007 Petitioner Versus Smt. Savltri Bai The State of Chhattisga'h & others Sii^ie Beneh: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihoti'i. Present; Mr. M.K. Bhaduri, Advocote fw the petitioner. Ms. E5eepali Pandey, Ponel Lawyer for the State. OR b E R (Possed on 23Ni Doy of Febniary, 2007) The fojlowing order of the Court wos p<ssed by Satish K. AgnihoW. 3. 1. Learned counsel appewing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was ap^ointed as Aanganbadi Wr'orker at Acngaibodi Centre Kunwa, Tahsil- Sdfaspuf Lohwa, &istrict-!<abir'dham vide order dated 8-11-2007 (Annexwe P-1). 2. Ths respondent No. 5 challenged the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the fumiiy of tiie respondent No. 5 is iiving beiow the poverty t-- line and the petitioner is not beiow the pwer'ty line ond her father is also a ©overnmaitServant. 3. Under* the Aangcnbadi Scheme no candidate will be appointed whose new relative is ©overnmentServcnt or Office bearer of Panchayat/ttunieipal. The preference shaiid be given to those woman candidates who ore jiving below the poverty iine. 4. It is odmitted case of the petitioner thot the father of the petitioner is a Govwnment Servant and dne doss not live below •rtie pover-ty !ine, on the contrary the respondent No. 5 lives beiow ttie poverty fine. Thus, the 3 5d;hash order of the Coliector/Additiona! Coilector, Kobirdham is just aid proper, and it does not warrant <ny interference. 5. Thus, the writ petition 'ss dismissed. No order 03 to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihom Judge