•^'/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Petitioner (Revisionist) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Writ Petition (S1 No. 2217 of 2009 Shrimati Kaushalaya Sahu, aged 33 years, wife of Tukaram Sahu, Aangan Badi Karyakarta, Resident of Jewara, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) Smt. Homeshwari, aged about 32 years, widow of late Indeshwar Sahu, resident of Jewara, Tahsil & Distt. Durg. Ku. Gayatri Ankalu Sahu, resident of Jewara, Tahsil & Distt. Durg C.G. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jewara Sirsa, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Sachiva, Gram Panchayat, Jewara Sirsa, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Ekikrit Gramin Bal Vikash Adhikari, Bunkar Sangh, Durg (C.G.) Chhattisgarh State/through Collector, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Honlsle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri P. S. Koshy, Advocate with Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 6. ORDER (Passed on this 11th day of May, 2009) 1. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Revision Case No. 108/A.89/07-08, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by order dated 13/14.07.2006, the petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi Worker in village Panchayat - Jevra, District Durg. The petitioner joined her duties on 24.07.2006 (Annexure P/3). Challenging the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbadi Worker, the respondent No.l (Smt. Homeshwari Sahu) filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Durg, ^ f-c^ H "5-7i.^ \:^ HO which was allowed by order dated 10.3.2008 (Annexure P/2) in Appeal Case No. 34-A/89/Year 2006-07. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2008, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Director, Panchayat, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure P/l). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker as she is living below the poverty line and a ration card to that effect has also been issued to the petitioner by the competent authority. The petitioner belongs fo the other backward class, she is 8th class passed, her name is included in the voter list and she is a permanent resident of village Jevra. The Policy for appoinfment of Anganbadi Worker provides that local person should be given priority over others. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Janpad Panchayat, Durg and the petitioner was appointed by order dated 13/14.07.2006/after completing the proceedings, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent No.l filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Durg on the ground that she is a widow, thus she is having preferential right in appointment. She is 11th class passed and she has teaching experience, apart from the other required eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker. The appeal of the respondent No.l was allowed by the Additional Collector, Durg by order dated 10.3.2008, holding that the petitioner, as well as the respondent No.l both are not eligible for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker, in accordance with the prevalent u'. i ^-^^ rules, regulations, instructions and guidelines for appointment in this regard. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and the Janpad Panchayat, Durg was directed to take fresh proceedings for appointment of Anganbadi Worker in village Jevra, in accordance with the instructions of the Government. On revision, the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, by impugned order dated 5.11.2008, affirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Durg. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. The authorities below have found that the petitioner and the respondent No.l both are eligible and their names also find place in the voter lists. The petitioner is eligible, her name is in the voter list and she is local. She possess class 8th passed certificate and as such, she has preference, as if a candidate having class 8th passed certificate is available, no other candidate, having more qualification can be given weightage or preference. The respondent No.l is having 11th class examination certificate, she is local and widow and her father-in-law is in Government service. Thus, the same cannot be granted to the respondent No.l. The father of the petitioner is working in Bhilai Steel Plant. Thus, the petitioner as well as the respondent No.l both cannot be appointed as Anganbadi Worker. Accordingly, it was found that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. However, direction issued by the Additional Collector, Durg to conduct a fresh selection for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker, in accordance with law, was'affirmed by the Director, Panchayat. I ha.ve found ^^ ^ ^,(. ^' ' '^ \.'...^ "'. ^y 7. u^- Thakur no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. It is well-nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where per^ersity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. In view of the above, this petition has no merit, it is accordingly dismissed. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge