Respondenfs 1. 5mm of Chhafrisgarh, Through ii’s Secretary, Deparfmem of Women and Child Development D.K.5. Bhavmn, Rnipur (CG) Direcfor, Panchaya‘r, Rnipur (C.6.). Chief Execuiive Officer, Jila Panchuyu‘t, Bihspur ($6.) 4. Chief Exérufive Officer, Janpad Punchnyaf Pathnriyu, Disft~Bilaspur (C5) 5. Addifional Conecfor, Dist- Bilaspur we.) 6. Smt Gulabn Bai, WI Dimsh Tiwari, Agad Abaf-25 Vears, R/o- Viiinw- Bamuradih, Thesii - Aiungali. Dis'l't-Bilaspur (6.6.) WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTICE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION Singtg Bgnch : Han’bk Mr. satish KY Agnihmri, J. Shri Vinny Pandey, Advocate far the pefiiioner. 5hri Alnk Bnkshi, Govt Advoca‘te for ‘rha mspnndanfs No. 1, 2 and 5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on was 28*“ day of Apra. 2008) 1. Learmd caunszi appearing fur 1hz pefi'finner submifs war-the pefifionér was selected an 6.3.2007 for 1‘12 posf of Anganwadi Wnrker in ViHage - Bnmumdih, Tahsi — Mungzii, Dimic'f- Bilaspur, in acmrdance wi'ih fhz guidelines issued by The Collegfar Vida circular da'l'zd 7.2.2006. In ucéordnncg with fhe salaci lisf timed / \‘\ / - @ 6.3.2007, fha pei’i'fiorier was given +he charge of 'l'he post on 12.3.2007. Thereafter, one Gulaba Bni Wed a Pnnd‘myaf Appeal No. 651-89 (15) 06-07, being aggrieved by me seneemm and , appointment of the petitioner on the post of Angonwadi Worker. Thu? appeal was al‘awed by 1he Addi+ianal CoHec‘tm‘ vide order awed 11.1o.2oo7 (Annexure PA). Learned caunsel far The petmaner furiher submifs +ha+ fhe pe'l'i'l'ioner was no? made par-{y +0 ‘the proceeding in appm! before fhe Addi'riona! Cnllec'I'or, even a‘hen, wi'rhoui' giving an apparfuni‘ly af hearing +0 1he petitioner 1'0 pu'r forward her case, *he order da'i'ed 11.10.2007 was passed. The pe‘l'i'tianer dmllenged fhe order dated 11.10.2007 before the Director, Panahayaf, Chha't-tisgarh, Raipur in Appeal Case No. 34/A-89(15)l07-08; which was dismissed by impugned order dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure P/3). Being aggrieved, 'the petitioner has filed 'l‘his pe‘ti‘tion on 'the ground 'tha't the petitioner was duly selected and appoin‘ted on the posf of ‘Angonbodi Worker, before isming 'the seiec‘t list objections were invi'ted but 'ihe respondent &Jlobo Bai did not raise any objection ot that time. The petitioner belongs to O.B.C. category, whereas Gulabo Bai is o member‘of general community. The petitioner belongs to a family, living below the poverty line (B.P.L)‘ and the order dated 11.10.2007 was passed by the Additional Collectorpwithout affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I have heard ienrned caunszl appearing far 'rhe parfies and par-used $2 orders passed by ‘rhe Cauwrs below“ The Director, Punchoya‘r in his arder da‘red 7.4.2008 has deal? wHh all #12 pain-rs raised by *he pefii'ionzr, 1412mm, and affer examining ihe recards and has passwl +he reasoned arder. The Dirac+ar has considered fha'l' 1412 name of lhe family of 'rhe p2+i+ianer was included in 'Hm lis'l' BPL familizs for lire yzar 2062-2003, whiah was no'l' pravalanl' when the selection for Anganbadi Worker was made. The name of Gulaba Bai was recommended for appoin'lmen'l’ an 'l'he pasf of Anganbadi Worker in village - Bamuradih, as she was having higher percenfage of marks in Class—VIII. In 1he proposed lis't prepared by ihe Project Officer, Women and Chiid Developmenf Project Pa'lharia' fhe name of Guiaba Bai was approved bu'l' in The selecf lis+ prepared by fhe .Join'l' Committee, cons'fifu'red by +l1e Coilecl'or, Bilaspur fbe name of the pe'l'i'rioner was menl'ioned. Thus, 1he order da‘red 11.10.2007 passad by fhe Collector was upheld. In View of 'rhe foregoing, I do no'r find my reason fa infer-fare with fhe findings of bofh fhe Cour'l's below. Resuli'an'rly, +he pew-ion is dismissed, summarilyih SCU- i; Satish K. Agnihntri i Judge Thakw‘ J? i ‘,, J I i i l e e _.,,_o i I , ‘i