'w ^s'-^^e ^ ^.•t^^3<?:—'?;> -Ai;S^& ^••^' <iir«t<t>i<»ttf 'dni'!<ii«{1'iui iw^w.i'g^;^<t!Mfl]^i»^«»t»;^e'MWjsE^l^lr.). WRTTPETniON (St No,38'?0. <ftiRft ^TPFI W^ ^RT ^q •nwro fl% %g vfws as ^ Pt4i<it ^ra ^w (re^ftar we-T ftrar ^f (»^rJ i. i>^Tl'u''i<iwH'i. gT?r 'flf^r ir«rraiT s^ wui <i><-^iBi. <ra <i>c<ii"i ftre twl. lirag^W^-) 2. ySI <»>|<{i|!<'!*1 SlftFWft, vf'Wt it^wd. 1ne-i. yf ^r.) " , '^' .lsi':.j,.:"••; .j 3. Vf^R. W Mitiqirt WOf rt<<(ft<?) iWVf. ^Svfl S^ ^-I!-) « . . ...<:;,„':,:: 4. ^ltft wqtRl WI^ qRT •lti^ ^m'? PRNI vn ^w dgdlri ine-r ^^.) jn^v/'fK <iiR<«si wr'hr 226 *Jt'srfl<< flRE|l«) SB: Hun'Me Shri Satish K. AenMiBtrt.(. Present: SlmAnaadKssharvwm^AdvocMeftorAepetitipner. ?l -- Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Paaei Lavvyer&rthe State/rsspQndientNo.l ORALORDER ^ s ~g (Passed on 21" day of Juiy, 2608) ^ 1. By Ihis petiti<Mi, Ihe petitioner unpugns the oider dsSed 5.'. (AmieMire-l) passed by the Director, Pandiayat, in Aj^eal Csae No. 445/A-89/06.07. 2. The brief fects, in nutshell, are that Ihe petitioner v»as appomted as Angan Badi woricer in Angwi Badi Kendra, Gram Paachayat Karsa, Tehsil Patan, Disteict Durg, by order dated 27.12.2006 (Annexure-3). 'Ehe resptaidait ao. 4 preferred an appeal before the Additional Celtectw, Dur^? quertoning the appointment of the petitioner on the ground tturt fhe brother ®fthe petitioner namely Jhannu Ram Sahu is a eovemment servant. The Additional Collector, Durg, after hearing the parties, fouad that the petitioner, beina sister of Jhannu Ram Sahu, who happens to be a Lectwer »its^ ^^,:y^^- :^^:^8^:'^':r; «f • Ai •. 4. :-^\ / • ', W } -2- (Incharee Principal), Achaud Gunderdehi, cam»tbe appointed on the post ofAnganBadiworker. e s Being aggrieved, tiie petitioner preferred a revision before the Director Panchayat, CMiattisearh. The Director Panchayst, by his orda- dated 05.05.2008 (Amiexure P/l) dismissed the revision petitfea filed by the petitioner and upheld the order passed by the Additional Coltector. Durg, to the effect that relation of the petitioner is a aovermaent aervamt, tiius, fhe petitioner is not entitledto be appointed onthe post ofAngai Badi woricar. The appointment ordw dated 27. 12.2006 (Aimexure P/3) also naakes it clear at elause 6 fliat in the event, it is found that any member ofthe femily is a govemment servant, the appoinbnent shall be deaned tp have been cancetled. Shri Kesharwani, leamed counsd at^earing far Ihe petiticmCT admits the fact fhat fhe petitioner's brother is a govemment servaat. Accordmgly, tiie order dated 16.08.2087 (Amiexure-2) passed by the Additioaal Collector, Dure, and the order dated 5.5.2008 5(Aime3aare-I) passed by fhe Director, Panchayat, are proper and unexceptionablaItoe appointanent offhe petitioner was not in aceprdance with the prgvisions of law. Thus, the same was rightly cancelled. In view ofthe foregoing, tUs petition is devoid ofmerit and isaccwding^y dismissed. No wder asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge m v^^r^s\