[GH REV1EW PETn'lON No. 31 OF 2007 J^'y? TIX'i~'T<0(''<>J''H''0 r'fe i 1 i Ujn iiiK. RESPONBENTS Smt. Savitri Bai wife of Shri Uttam. ased about 22 years, Resideat of Village Kunwa, Talisil Sahaspur 1,0'aara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ~r7^?"nCt'BT, VEKSUi 1. The State of Chhattisearh. Throueh: The Secretaiy, Depauinent of Maliila Avam Bal Vikas Vibhaa. C.G. Raipur. 2. Tfae Collector/Additional CoUector, Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. TSie Cliief Executive Officer, Janpad Paachayat Sahaspur Lohara. District Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. The Project OjEcer, Maliila Avain Bal Vikas Vibhas. Sahaspur Lohara. District Kabirdham fiT^ r\ \ . •- \^.ij.) 5. Smt. Yashoda Bai Wife ot'Shri Bharat Lal, ased about 25 years, Resideut of Village Kunwa, Tahsil Sahapur Lohara, District Kabirdham //-i r~< \ f^.u.^. APPLKAJION FOR RE\1EW OF THE. ORDER DATED 23.02.2007 PASSED IN W.P.CS') No_ 1030/2007 ''SMT. SAVITRI BAI VS. THE STATE OF C.G. ANE* 4 OTHIiRS'i Presem: Shri P.P.Sahu.Advocateforfheapplicant. SIiri Y.S.Tha»ur,Govt. Advocate fortiie State. ^s?s?^^ ^.f, ''?0ta --Sni-er f;f T''lr>^ /^HO'7\ ^r u^acu '*jii ^-t-; U*AJ. UA JUiA^ ^iuu / ^ 1. Tae petitioner has imougned the order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Kabirdham. whereimder the appointmeat of the petitioner was cancelled aad one Smt. Yashoda Bai was found elisible for aoDointmeat on the post ot'Anean Badi worker, in Writ Petitton No. 1039 of2007. 2. Tbe petitioner has fiied this review petition on the around that this court has not considered the grouad to the eflect that the oetitioner was not afforded anv ooDOrtumtv ofhearine before the Collector. rlihis Court. atter 4. hearma the leamed counsel Sx the petitioner and examinms the documents appended thereto- came to the conclusion that the order ofthe Collector-'Additional Collector Kabeerdham was just and proper as opportunitv ofhearine was atforded to the petitioner. la the revisw petition, the leamed counse! for fhe petitioner submits that the petitioner be sranted liberty to take recourse to the other altemative fbrjm that mav be available to her. to which the leamed counsel appeariae for the State/respondents has no objection. In view of the above. the petitioner is at libert^' to take recourse to other altemative fcmm tliat mav be available to her. Ths order dated 23 Febman?. 2007 passed bv this Coiirt in W.P. No. 1039 of 2007 shall not come in wav ofdecision takine bv flie hieher authorities. Thus, this review petition stands disoosed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Amit J—.