^ BENS^ y '' (•W'f' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION fS) N0. tf'2-L/^ Q^ 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS / Smt. Anupa Shrivastava, wife of Ramnaresh Shrivastava, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS : ^t- l.S- State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Urban Administration and Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.). ^, -2. Additional Collector, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ,3. Chief Munidpal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Project Officer, Unified Child Development Project, Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE_CQNSTITUTION OFINDIA -\ ,•»- >?T( HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4245 OF 2009 Smt. Anupa Shrivastava RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. Advocate Generat with Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 26th day of April, 2010) 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the advertisement dated 9/7/2009 (Annexure P-1), whereby the applications were invited for appointment on the post of Anganbadiworker in Rajiv Gandhi Ward No.11, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur. Further, a direction to the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Anganbadi worker. 2) The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that initially one Bharti Gupta was appointed as Anganbadi worker, who ,left the post after getting married. In her place, Asha Sharma was appointed. The appointment of Asha Sharma was chaltenged by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Pendra Road, Bilaspur. <r~v'%. i8». K 't, »k ^.^ •.-^"-.•^'^T^J'1 3) The Additional Collector, Pendra Road, Bilaspur after having considered all the aspects of the matter by order dated 18/3/2006 (Annexure P-3) quashed the appointment of Asha Sharma without any direction for appointment of the petitioner on the said post. Thereafter, review petition was also filed by the petitioner. The review petition was dismissed by the Additional Collector by order dated 15/09/2008 on the ground that the appeal has been preferred by Asha Sharma before the Director, Panchayat. Asha Sharma is not a party respondent in this petition. 4) The petitioner claims appointment on the basis of order dated 18/3/2008 passed by the Additional Collector on the ground that since the appointment ofAsha Sharma has been cancelled, as a consequence the petitioner deserves to be appointed on the post of Anganbadi worker. According to the petitioner, several representations were made. The Additional Collector, by order dated 9/2/2009 (Annexure P-6) observed that since the appointment ofAsha Sharma has been cancelled as being illegal. There was no direction to appoint the petitioner on the post of Aanganbadi worker and further directed that fresh process for appointment shatl be initiated in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned advertisement dated 9/7/2009 (Annexure P-1) was issued inviting the applications from the eligible candidates for selection'and appointment on the post of Anganbadi worker. 5) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the appointment of Asha Sharma was cancelled at the instance of - ife..." 1 ^ ^ •/"' -''-is-'-:;S-;-3 the petitioner, the petitioner, as a consequence, is entitled to appointment on the post of Anganbadi worker without going through any selection process, deserves to be rejected. This may be one ofthe grounds in appeal, but the Additional Collector after having considered all the aspects of the matter cancelled the appointment of Asha Sharma without any direction for appointment of the petitioner. Subsequently by order dated 9/2/2009 (Annexure P-6) directed to make afresh appointment in accordance with law. Accordingly, a fresh advertisement was issued inviting application for appointment. 6) The claim of the petitioner that she has right to be appointed in place of Asha Sharma is baseless without there being any foundation or any material. Orders dated 18/3/2006 and 9/2/2009 passed by the Additional Collector are clear, unambiguous and do not permit any other interpretation. The petitioner appears to be afraid of facing the selection process. Thus, she has not participated in the selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 9/7/2009 and is claiming the appointment on account of cancellation of appointment of Asha Sharma. 7) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge