G^ /^/l 9 sm&Lt IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (227) N0. °3(<2J OF 2009 (S.B.) PETITIONER REVISIONER RESPONDENTS : NON-APPLICANTS y Smt. Ajeevan Bee W/o Rasid Khan aged about 30 years, R/o Village Virendranagar, Block Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.). VERSUS 1. The Additional Collector, Kabirdham (C.G.). ^•^ ^'^M ^17"^^' .^^'6,.V4 \'\^ .**' ,--2. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdhain(C.G.j. 3. The Project Officer, Unified Women & Child Development Department, Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 4. Smt. Revtibai W/o Lekhram, R/o Virendranagar, Block Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -3^[ "41<<ld'4, 8iflly'l<c, fc(dl'!-l^< ^...u...e.a^..ia.2-..'?..j^. an^?i'(raEP (' wiOT^r^im ^?nwflte(3^ iim?jf -^' -fy^ 'ra«^K RsifaH'sn^i ,JJ 23.6.3011 counfeel wov for fhe petitioner. r, Panel L-a'Ayer for fhe Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Sbri N. Naha State/respondems No. 1 & 3. None for respondent No.+ diough. served. Heard on admission. This petition has been 4ted by the petitioner against the order dated 25.6.2009 {Annexii.re P-li passea in rev-ision by the Director, Panchayat, whereb^j peti.tioner''s revision has been disiaissed. | Facts, ia. brief, are that (n the laatter of disputes reiating to appoiatuient of Aanganw^idi Worker, the petitioner had. preferred an appeal againstj selection and appoiatment of respondent No.4 as Aangasjwadi Worker. The appeal was disiuissed, against which, fhe |revision was preferred toefore the Direction, Panchayat, which h^.s also been dismissed. Learaed counsel for fi^e petitioner submitted that the petitioner was more quaUfied jas compared to respondent No.4 as fhe petitioner is 8th pass, ^hereas, respondent. No.4 is only 5th pass. He furfher submit.s| fhat even fhough tbere was no reservation for tlle post, resp^ndent No.4 was given preference on fhe ground that she belojngs to reserve category. Furtber submission is fhat fhe findi^ig of fhe Courts below fhat the petitioner is disqualified as ttje brother of the petitioner is the ^- '9/ . 1»" f?:TW ^EET "4|A)lc{<4, s?ti1yis, f®ldTOll< SiI^T 'Wf; (Tpig^q) ?WTWCfCT3n^I petiqoner Panch of Gram Pancto-'at, is p^r disqualification. Ou the other hand, learclf that fhe revision of the recording a finding fhat the bj and, tuerefore, the petitioner i^ poUcy dated 27.5.2006, refen-41 Paiichayat. He further submlt spectficaUy raised any specific perverse or contrary to fhe Even assuming for fhe aj-; was more meritorious and au; was not entitled for any prefe^ fhat she belongs to reserve leamed counsel for fhe petitioj why fhe order of the Director regarding petitioner the Director, Panchayat show^ found disquaUfied as fhe Gram Panchayat. In order to has referred to Circular dated fhe petition, no speci&c ground to traverse that findin.e either r/erse aad it does not entsil ariv disqualific^tion peti1(ione =hi<if?<41-f 'wRff ir fyet WR?R ^73ffgiT3T!^T ;d counsel for the State submits has been dismissed upon •other of the petitioner is Panch disqualtfied in view of fhe Govt. to in fhe order of fhe Director, ts that the petitioner has not ground as to why fhat findiag is ofany law. •guiaent sake fhat the petitioner ilified and fhat respondent No.4 tential treattaent on the grouad Igory, as the post is not reserved, lier could not demonstrate as to |is perverse in so far as finding is coucemed. The order of that fhe petitioner has been [ioner's brofher is panch of the to fhat finduig, fhe Director 127.5.1996 offhe State Ciovt In thas been taken bv the oetitioner submit that the feiding of fact pro\(ision slBf catdgorv cifme tb 'S^ ^WM^, SSflly'IS, fs|<>ll'Mll,< SS^V TT^T ('^fg^T) S Rl TOI3i1^I **li* WIIWBf??! 311^1 ?. chi<lit*1^tl *iWf^ ^f f^5t ^•^.R ^3ifTO3!!t?l superyisory is contrary to facts and rec4 provision for disquali&cation. In fhat view of fhe mattfcr, herself was declared disquaijified assessm.ent would not arisel Panchayat, therefore, does not| Court in exercise of its 227 ofthe Constitutionoflndiat Learned counsel for the submitted that respondent I{ disqualification, as her brofheil in the Railwavs. I do not find fhat fhis fh.e petitioner before any of fh^ passed by fhe Director, Panch^yat such ground was taken by fhe specific case ofthe petitioner, notice to the concemed authori|ty. trds or fhat there is no such ^r, I find fhat as fhe petitioner ified, question of comparative The order of the Dit-ector, caU for any interference by fhis nsory jurisdiction under Ardcie Ipetitioner, however, at fhe lasi., Fo.4 also suffers from serious is a Govt. servant and working gfound was specifically raised by aufhorities. Even ia the order li^yat, it does not reflect that aisy ^etitioner, however, if that is the 1pie petitioner may bnng it to the In fhe result, I do not fhe uetition. The petition is dismissed. iub.d anv nierit in fhe petition and pable to be and is accordingly Prayee^ SdA |Manindra Mohan Shrivastaval Judge ?