HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil KumarSinha. J. Writ ADpeal No. 170 of 2007 Kum. Shanta Gautam Vs. Janpad Panchayat, Akaltara & others ORDER SdA suail^rSi^ re Hon'ble Shri Justice Raieev Gupta J Sd/- » ChiefJustice ^^7037^u09- PostforOrder :2^03/2009 Sd/- Suitii Kumar Sinha to' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Writ Appeal No. 170 of 2007 APPELLANT Kum.Shanta Gautam, Now Smt. Shanta Bharadwaj, D/o B.S. Gautam and W/o Kishore Kumar Bharadwaj, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village: Kapan, Via Akaltara, District: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS 1 2. 3. Versus Janpad Panchayat, Akaltara, Through the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Akaltara, District: Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh Commissioner, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Collector, District: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Smt. Saraswati Sandilya, W/o Lakeshwar Singh, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village: Kapan, Block: Akaltara, District: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat: Kapan, Through its Secretary, District: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Writ Appeal underSection 2 Sub-Section (1) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (ADpeal t6 Division Bench) Act.20061 Appearance: Mr. Siddharth Rathore, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj.Govt.Advocate for the State/respondentsNo.2 &3. None for other respondents. ^.! WritADpealNo. 170 of2007 ORDER (Z7-.03.2009) Following order of the Court was delivered Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. by (1) Being aggrieved with order dated 12.1.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4899/2000, the appellant/petitioner has preferred this Writ Appeal. (2) The appellanVpetitioner was appointed on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta in Gram Panchayat.Kapan, District Janjgir-Champa. She took the charge ofthe said post on 26.9.98. Respondent No. 4 challenged the said appointment of the appellant before the Collector mainly on the grounds that the appellant's father was drawing pension more than Rs.3,000/- per month and her sister was Secretary of Gram Panchayat, therefore, she was noteligible for being appointed on the post of Anaganbadi Karyakarta. The Collector, vide orderdated 3.3.99 cancelled the appointment of the appellant on the ground that her father was drawing annual pension Rs.12,000/- and he has 3.50 acres of land and his name waswrongly included inthe listof persons living below poverty line, therefore, the appellant was not entitled for preferential consideration. The appellant preferred an appeal against the saidorder and the Appellate Authority vide his order dated26.4.2000 dismissed the appeal. The appellant preferred writ petition thereafter, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Jucjge vide the impugned order, against which, this appeal has been filed. > (3) Leamed Single Judge held that the father ofthe appellant was not ^9 persons living below poverty line and two sistersof the appellantwere i!,,li|] WritADpealNo. 170 of2007 working, one was Secretary ofGram Panchayat, Kapan and other was clerk in GovernmentAgricultural Department, therefore, according to the prevailing instructions, the appellant was noteligible for appointment to thesaidpost. (4) Mr. Siddharth Rathore, learned counsel appearing on behalfofthe appellant, argued that the appellant was more qualified, therefore, her namewas recommended by theGram Panchayat and she was appointed and the authorities ought not have cancelled her appointment. (5) On the other hand, Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents 2 & 3, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (6) We haveheard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have alsoperused therecords of theWrit Appeal as also the Writ petition. (7) So far as instmctions issued for appointment ofAnganbadi Karyakarta and theguidelines in this regard have not been disputed by the counsel for theappellant. It has been contended in these documents that no persons,Who isthe relative ofa government servantor relative of elected or nominated member of Panchayat institutions, shall be appointed as Anganbadi Worker/Anganbadi Sahayika. It has further been instructed that the preference has to be given to the widow, desert ladies and members ofthe family belonging to below povertyline and scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. (8) It is undisputed that the pension of the father ofthe appellant was fixed at Rs.1,000/-per month. The appellant's father commuted his /is^sjacmsss^ R'a^Vi^fcBnilBUUliiB&B 4 Wnt Aooeal No. 170 of 2007 pension, therefore.he was paid a total sum of Rs.37,656/- and thereafter he was drawing Rs.700/- per month. Thus, he was getting more than Rs.11,000/- per annum which is the maximum income prescribed for a persons tobebelow poverty line. The two sisters ofthe appellant were also working on the above posts. Therefore.the ^ppellant was not entitled toany preference for appointment to the said post. (9) So far as argument pertaining to qualification is concerned, that cannot be given more weightage as per scheme issued by the Government for appointment to the post of Anganbadi Worker. If the scheme and instruction do notpermitthe appointmentof such persons, it cannot be said that the cancellation of appointment by the competent authority wasnot in accordance with law. (10) We do not findany illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (11) The appeal has nomerit, the same is liable to be dismissedand is accordingly dismissed. (12) No order as to the cost. 8d/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha vatti ••"•r