r11 ig.j K^^^^^^..^.^^^ SiSisSS---AS- F^i'Bi.w^L'SSS^ISKSW^^T^^X-J:::^. :-\-^= 'SSjSS^SBSI :jisssssgss3s'' §s5@SSi: 'a^riiT^ia^y±^^fcriEi l«'?S?rt^':^T'^'?"u'fLwiii^Sff?dJ'w"^^wi£nif T^C^S^i^^-SF^^^T^-: •?.;/\!;;;l^^E?!l;"^^^^S^l^"@^^^^^l;i!"^^;y^'.^ iSgggiSBiagtSI SS?i|»i||! ^. .i'srn;;,^^^^^^^^^^ •sWiSSKS i® 3RS^ wssm^. ISRSI SSt ^'S^K€WS'K 'Ss^9i^wW ?SiS9S SWs ii '8SlM^!' is%sw;;,es^ SssMMlsissiS' KSIililll- :^SS.^^,3.. i%BI a 1 K ^sw ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^^^SS^si^^^^^^^SIS ^^^i.;i%@ %^^^^^^^^@^^^^^^®^^^@'Sf^^^i^^S@^§S^^IS»!iS^^^^^^S^^§l£S S^£3 ^SsSsKSs. stiiir"" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justlce Pritinker Diwaker Writ PetitiontSl No. 5875 012008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Shashibala Bisvas Versus State ofChhattis^arh and 3 others. 1 ',^ Post for pronouncement cif the order on /3.12.201 O Sd/- PritinkerDiwafcer Judge ^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) WritPetition (S) No. 5875 of 2008 PETITIONER Smt. Shashibala Bisvas VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhgittisgarh and 3 others Smt. Hamida Siddiqui counsel for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondents No. 1 to3. Shri A.N. Bhakta counsel for respondent No. 4. 0R D E R C^.12.2010) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 30.9.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by District Programme Officer cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Workerand appointing respondent No. 4 in place ofthe petitioner. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that after completihg all the formalities, the petitioner was appointed as Aganwadi Worker for the Anganbai Centre, Ramnagar Kala on 11.09.2007 vide Annexure P-5 and she gave her joining at the said place on 12.9.2007 vide Annexure P-6. She submits that respondent No. 4 made a complaint before the Additional Collector (respondent No. 2) which was registered as Case No. 02/2007-08/Misc. Enquiry/A-89 and after receiving fhe notice from the Court of Additional Collector, petitioner had entered her appearance. During the pendency of said enquiry before the Additional Collector, all of a sudden impugned order has been passed cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and appointing the respondent No. 4 in her place. She submits that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing nor has she been given any notice and therefore the order impugned is liable to be quashed. 3. Opposing the contention of the counsel for the petitioner it has been argued by the counsel fbr the respondents/State that as per fhe circularofthe State Government dated 2.4.2008 the order impugned is ;^^:?:?S®^<@ ^%£A?B%^ K&^^KB%i3^!^S3^^i@SS^ -2--- appellable one and the appeal there-against lies to the Commissioner underthe provisions of Chhattisgarh Pancahyat Raj Adhiniyam. Counsel for respondent No.4 also supports the argument of the counsel for the respondents/State. 4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an appeal to the Commissioner. However, she prays for a direction to the Commissioner to decide the appeal of the petitioner within certain time frame as the petitioner has been prosecuting this petition since 2008. State counsel as also counsel for the respondent No.4 have no objection if the petitioner is permitted towithdraw this petition with liberty to file appeal before the Commissioner. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. If the petitioner files an appeal to the Commissioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the same is expected to be decided by it as expeditiously as possible preferably within a further period of four months there from ignoring the point of limitation. — Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge