-L f^tCl.t Vt^ ^'*^". 5.: ^o / 1-6 IN THE HQN'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 6^?'V QF 2009 (S.B.) PETITIONER Q RESPONDENTS .^ .^ ^^ ': 'TO^' >' ¥*/• ^&»TiSH'^.,/ 7^ / Smt. Champa Bai Patre W/o Bhikhani Patre, aged about 34, R/o Gram Panchayat Mohtara TeU Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Bilaspur(C.G.). VERSUS ^l. The Project Officer, Woraan and Child Development Project Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --2. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad -Panchayat Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. The President, Constituted Joint Selection Committee, Bilaspur (C.G.). ^4. The Director, Pdnchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.). ^ 5. The Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.). 6. Smt. Sushila Shravan Kalar, Grara Panchayat Mohtara Teli, Janpad Panchayat Lorrai, District Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA H!GH CQURTOE^HHATTiSGARi-T^iLASPUR PET!T!ONER RESPONDENT WR!T PET!T!ON f227) N0. 698 OF 2009 Smt. Ghampa Bai Patre Versus The Project Officer & Others (Writ Petltion under Articie 227 ofthe Constitution of indla) Slngle Bench : Hon'b'e Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri M.K.Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER fORAU (Passed on this 7th day ofApril, 2011) 1. Cha'lenge in this petition is to the order dated 31.12.200( (Annexure P-4), passed by the Director Panchayat, against order dated 25.02.2008 {Annexure P-3), whereunder, remova! of the petitioner from the post of Anganbadi worker was found proper and the revlsion before the Director Panchayat was rejected. 2. 'ndisputably, the petitioner was one of the candidates, who made an application for appointment on the post of Anganbadi worker in Gram Panchayat - Mahotara Teli, Janpad Panchayat - Lormi, District- Biiaspur. The petitloner was found selected and accordingly by the order dated 12.03.2007 (Annexure P1), the petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi worker. Thereafter, sh< was removed from the post and the respondent No.6 was appolnted in her piace, by order dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure P-2). 3-' The petltioner, accordingly, filed a case before the Collector, Bilaspur, raising his grievance that desptte the selectioh of the petitioner on the post of Anganbadi worker, she has been removed from the said post and in her place, respondent No.6 has been appoints'd by order dated 11.07.2007 (Annexure P-2). 4. The Collector, after having considered a!l the aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that, when the petitloner was se'ected for appointment on the post of Anganbadi worker, her s>. 7 'afheNn-isw was Panch of the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the order of removai was in accordance with law, just and proper. Accordingly, the appeai was dismissed by order dated 25.02.2008 (Annexure P-3). Thereagainst, a revision was preferred by the petitioner to the Director Panchayat. The Director Panchayat, havlng confirmed the findings recorded by the Coiiector, reiterated the fact that the father-in-law of the petitioner was Panch of the Gram Panchayat and he has rendered reslgnation on 03.03.2007. in the meetinc held on 27.02.2006, where the selection process was taken place, the petitioner's father-in-iaw Hari Prasad, being a Panch was present in the meeting and the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Anganbadi worker. Ciause 1,8 of the sc'neme dated 02.04.2008, cleariy provides that the cfose relation, who may be peoples rspresentative or the Government servant, shai! remain away from ths process of seiection. The seiection of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Clause 1.8 of the scheme. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, it is evident that at the time of seiection, Tather-in-law of the petitioner, Hari Prasad was a Panch of the Gram Panchayat and not only that he has a!so participated in the selection process, wherein, the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Anganbadi worker. Thus, the process ofseiection is vitiated. !t is wei! settled principles of law that if the seiection is vitiated on account of presence of some relative, which comes under the prohibited category, the seiection itself is bad and illega!. Even othen'lse, when the application was made for selsction or durine the selection, the petitioner was disqualified, as being relatlve i.e. daughter-in-Iavrf of a Panch of the said Gram Panchayat. Thus, as a result, there is no infirmity, irregularity and illegality in the orders passed by the Coliector and the Director Panchayat. Accordingly, the writ petiSlon is dismlssed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge ..V