^f'ssac^ ^>0». .-f:"?"-'^''??';. ^s^""i3xg-HC-22 i^sf%x v^/y '^ q,n'r ^ •^9'»i! ^ .<y sii^r^ii R-li.'* 311JRT 9S+lill ^i^Ct ^ ^g "iii^iitri'M, ^Tfly'i's. i'<Mi'"*i< snip?r •q?ra? wwirgi*<i«) 'WI, 200 Id'btlST' 37T^?T ^wil^R 'Mf^d (Sinole Bench; Hon'ble Mil W.P. [ (Petition U/A 226f/W PETITIONERS about Baramk Vs *lil<'i41-f HWvW 4 fe%t <f°itsi< ^ siPgq aii^r . Justice bhirendra Mishra) b1 No.6998/08 2Z7 of Constitution of rndia) Smt. S^ifed Sidar, W/o Shravan Sidar, Aged ]24 years, R/o Village Sahajpali, ^la, Distt. Raigarh (C6). RESPONbENTS 1. Stale of Secil Welfare bevelopment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipl 2. t5ire| 3. Coll^ etary, Chhattisgarh, through" its Office of Women & Child ar (C6). ctor, Panchayat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ;ctor, Distt. Raigarh(C6) 4. Chiejf Executive Officer, Janpad Panc]hayat Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh (CG) 5. Sarf)anch, 6ram Panchayat Kanthipali, Tah^il Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh (C.6.). 6. Ram(?ai, W/o Shailendra, Gram Panchayat Kan-t|hipali, Tahsil Baramkela, Distt. Raig{irh (C.6.). • Present: Mr. Vinod Deshmukh & Mr. V. Verhia Mr. Amrito t)as, Panel Lawyer for| Mr. Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate for 15.12.2008 Heard. With the consentof the po i, Advocates for the petitioner. the State. •'espondent No.6. rties, the matter is heard finally. ( '& fr- 1 f-HC-22: ;lc^ ^ ^^,^^^/ si^rw l<i-li.<* SII^t ?ti*1 •fll^T '3^ -Lll'llld'i<, ofll^'is, facii'yy sn^?T xra^ 111CTI g,^,,:^—••—•——•———————'g^ 200 'fN^T""""""""" 3li^[ ^giwofsa 2.- By this petition the petitiori P-1 dated 26.11.2008 passed by Raipur by which the revision of r& dnd the order of Additional Collet set aside. Briefly stated facts of the of 6ram Panchdyat Kanthipali da1 one Surekha <& respondent No.6 w post of Aanganbadi Worker for Vi jahpad Panchayat Baramkela video| appointed respondent No.6 as Ang\ / . petitioner preferred an appeal agc the Additiorial Collector, Raigarh P-8) allowed the appeal and ss\ respondent No.6 and directed tc| Worker. ftespondent No.6 -filed a^ Additional Collector before the r4 vide impugned order dated 26.11.; No.6, set aside the order of ap|| restored the order of respondent| as Aanganbadi Worker. tii<i[c]<Ili iiifff fl feist <Rit^l< i? 3ifiaH <RI^T :r has impugned the order of Annexure |respondent No.Z-Director, Panchayat, Ipondent No.6-Rambai has been allowed 1-or, Raigarh dated 22.9.2008 has been ;ase are that on the basis of resolution ^d 12.2.2006names of the petitioner, |ere forwarded for appointment on the lage Sahajpali. Respondent No.4-C.E.O., [order dated 19.1.2007 of Annexure P-7 inbadi Worker of Village Sahajpali. The inst the order of respondent No.4 and /ide ord.er dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure aside the order of appointment of appoint the petitioner as Aanganbadi revisipn petition against the order of ipondent No.2-C>irector, Panchayat who 008 allowed the revision of respondent iintment of the petitioner herein and N0.4-C.E.O. appointing respondent No.6 // "^: '.- ...-s'3'>\-.Ji^wrl-9/? '•^.••""~"5B 8"*-'^^ s ^ ^t, '*."^^ 3n?w^r M'h SUSiV ^^ flficT 'S^ •<inm'i, g-al^'iio, [sKtl'My ^E?r TRra? *<11CT| g,t||q, "' """""""""""^ 200 'f^sr" ai^TTRireT'afw *lir<-id)-< wwiif fey) <FK^|< ^siSOTsn^i -T,' Learned counsel for the pfftjitioner submits that the petitioner was denied appointment by respondent No.4-C.E.O.only on the ground that the riame 6f the petitioner is not incltded jn the voter list of the concerned village though she had submi'tted domicile certificate and caste certificate showing the petitione The Additional Collector allowing that both the candidates are Gli to be a resident of Village Sahajpali. the appeal of the petitioner observed iss 8T" pass, the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category dnd alsc^ a Below Poverty Line (BPL) card holder. Whereas, respondent No.6-Rambaf belongs to OBC category and she is not the BPL card holder. Therefore) as per guidelines, the petitioner was entitled for preference in the cjppointment on the post of Aanganbadi Worker. Reasons for denying the|petitionerappointment that her name is hbt included in the voter list has been hejd to be improper on the ground ; on record it is observed that originally lage Sariya, Tehsil Sarangarh and was thdt froftithe documents ovailabll the petitioneris resident of Vi| inaRried to Shravan, resident |)f Village Sahajpali in the month of December, 2005. The Superviso(- in his report has also mentioned that she is local resident of Villa^e Sahajpali and she is entitled for preference as she belongs to Sc^eduled Tribe category <& also a holder of BPL card and simply because her ^iame is not included in the voter list, the same cannot be a reason for d^nying her appointment particularly when she was recently married To a pesidenr or Villc'igs Suhujpuli.^t^^er, the ..-!"'2*ta.. ^- "^ ^,sy -HC-22 ail^r^T R-li.* 311^1 sh^I<ft ^lfgff y, 'S^I -^Wvi^, a'al'M'is, Iqwi'My an^?r •q^r 111CTI ^qJq;-————••———————-^^ 200 'f^^T""" an^TTOligT'df?^ --^-l' Director, Pqnchayat by theimpugr the mattenof appointment of name qf •f'KS petitioneris not inclui Gram Panchdyat Kanthipali,she js In the considered opinion o1 mentioned in the order of the sdfely inferred that the petition^r Village Sahajpali, she was r'es| Kanthipali and she could not be that her name isnot included in impugned cannot be sustained and In the result, the petition| 26.11.2008 passed by respondent dated 22.9.2008 passed by the if the petitioner as Aanganbadi Wo Kanthipali js hereby restored. No Certified copy as per rules. <=bl<lllCT141l *11*icff^ fsSlt <f<q<^l< iTariSOTsii^r \ed order referringto the guidelines in Aanibanbadi Worker has held that since the |ed in the voter list of Village Sahajpali, )ot erititled for appointment; this Court, in view of the above facts dditional Collector, Raigarh, it cdn be was mqrried to a person resident of |dent 6f Sahajpali, ©ram Panchayat |enied appointment only on the ground |the voter list. Therefore, theorder ^he same is liable to be set aside. is allowed, the impugned order dated No.2 is hereby set aside and theorder Idditional Collector, Raigarh appointing 'ker, Village Sahajpali, Sram Panchayat order as to costs. ^^^ ' ^