HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division ench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra 8t. Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. J U D G M E N T (19-3-2010)’ - 1’ This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 8‘11 January, 2010 passed‘ in Writ Petition (S) No.69/2010 whereby the appellant’s writ petition against cancellation of her appointment \order on/ the post of Aanganbadi Worker by the Additional / B \ Writ Appeal No.25 of 2010 APPELLANT: Smt. Rambai Sahu, W/o Shri Ramsay Sahu, Aged about 32 years, resident of Village Bodsara, Janpad Par1chayat, Nawagarh, District Janjgir— Champa, (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Department of L Women and Child Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Director, Panchayat, Directorate, Panchayat and ‘ Social Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Ma‘ntralay, Raipur (CG) 3. The Additional Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Navagarh, ,Janjgir-Champa (CG) 5. Smt. Rudrani Devi, W/o Deepak Kumar, R/o Village Bodsara, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District Janjgir—Champa (CG) Present: Shri V. Vijay, counsel for the appellant. @ Collector and subsequently confirmed in revision by the Director Panchayat, has been further dismissed. 2. The appellant Was appointed as Aanganbadi Worker in Aanganbadi Centre Village Bodsara. Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal against her appointment and the same was allowed by the Additional Collector Vide order dated 7-1—2009 in which it was held that the appellant was Panch of the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, she was not entitled for appointment o'n the post of Aanganbadi Worker, as her resignation was accepted on 1—5—2006 whereas, appointment order was issued on 30—5-2006. The <3 revision preferred by the appellant was again dismissed by the Director Panchayat. . The writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order and it has been held that the Director Panchayat has dealt with ther objection regarding limitation raised by the appellant herein and it was found that the Additional Collector considered and allowed the application for condonation of delay‘frled by the appellant by a reasoned order. Since the Director Panchayat has further held that the appellant’s appointment was contrary to the existing instructions for appointment of the Aanganbadi Workers, it was rightly rejected. Since the authorities below have examined the matter in detail and passed a reasoned order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and since there is no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, e interéfer‘ence in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not called for. \\\ @ . Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has tiled the entire order sheets of the proceedings before the Collector in writ appeal and from perusal thereof, it is evident that. the appeal was filed with a delay of 21 months Without flling any application for condonation of delay. He also argued that the appellant had tendered her, resignation on 6—2-2006 from the post ‘of Panch and thereafter applied for the post of Aanganbadi Worker on 8—2—2006 whereas she was appointed on 30th May 2006. .Referring to Rules 2 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Resignation by Office Bearer) Rules, 1995, (for short ‘the Rules, 1995’), it was argued that where a member has tendered his resignation and does not attend the meeting called for considering his resignation after valid Service of the notice on him and without sufficient reasons, his resignation shall be deemed to have been accepted after termination of such meeting and he ceases to be a member of the Panchayat. Since the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam mandates that meetingpf the Panchayat is to be convened every month, it can be safely inferred that the meeting must have been held after she submitted her resignation and since the appellant did not attend the meeting; her resignation is deemed to have been accepted. . So far as contention of the appellant that from perusal of the order sheets of the proceedings before the Collector, it is evident that the appeal was filed with a delay of 21 months without filing any t application for condonation of delay is concerned, the Director Panchayat, after going through the records of the Additional C9 Collector, has speciflcally mentioned that the appellant had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and had also assigned reasons- for the delay. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with the finding recorded bylearned Single Judge that the aforesaid objection has no substance. . Coming to the next argument that resignation of the appellant stood accepted in View of the deeming provisions in the Rules, 1995, from the order of the Director Panchayat, it is also clear that in a meeting dated 318t May, 2006 of the concerned Gram Panchayat, it was revealed that the appellant had tendered her resignation in the prescribed proforma on 23—5-2006 and she was personally present in the meeting and submitted an application that she is not withdrawing her resignation and accordingly her resignation was accepted. It is also mentioned that the name of the appellant was mentioned as Panch who participated in the meeting dated 3lst May 2006. In that View of the matter, the question of deemed acceptance of resignation of the appellant does not arise. - “u, , . On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we find no substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself, a g/ Sd/- Sdl- I I KN. CHANDRAKAR. Dhirendra Mishra .M/W Judge L Judge \