CO % HIGH COURT OF TI‘EE CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASFUR WRIT PETITION £2271 NO.3144/ 2009 PETITIONER Smt, Biudu Guxjar, D/o Shiv. Kumar Guljar, aged about 35 years, Resic’lent of Viiiag€ Khana, Goutiyapara, Jampad Panchayat and Tahsil Odgi, District Suruja (C.Gr.) Versus C3A RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhatijsgarh, through : The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D . K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Panchayat Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG‘) 4 The Project Officer, Unifled Woma11 and Child Development Pmject Department, Odgi, Distn'ct Surguja (CV G.) 5 Smt. Sunita Yadav, Wife of Dharampal Yadav, aged bout 33 years, Resident of Village Khana, Goutiyapara, Janpad Panchayat and Tahsil Odgi, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shli Ashok kilmar Shukla Counsel for the petitioner Shri Satish Gupta Govt Advocate for the State/respondents No 1 2 3 & 4 on advance copy ' ORAL oRnER (06.07.2009; ,/ SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. Respondent No.5 Smt. Sunita Yadav was appointed on the post of Aanganbadl Worker Her appomtment was challenged in W P (£3) No 2047/2007 bV pentioner ismt Bmdu Uumar The aforesaid writ petition was dlsposed of by this Court v1de order dated 3rd of April 2007. The operative part of the order reads as under : g X WP. (227) No.3 1 44/2009 “Be that as it may; Ihe Caiiecmn Sw‘guja is directed to look into the allegatimw made by the yetitioner and yaSS apprapriate Order affer affmdmg 0ppor£un€ty of hearing i0 E??'ae parifes in accardazme with iaw and as per Aanganbadi Scheme) wiihz’n c2, periad offour weeks from ihe daie of receipt of thfo order. " Thereafier, the mater was takeo up by the District Collector, who gyasged the order (Annexum P] 4) and cancelled the appoiiltment of :t‘er5pontient No.5 and the. petitioner was appoi11ted as Aanganbadi Worker 011 her ialace. Being aggrieved with me aforesaid order passed by the Coliector, respondent No.5 flied a revision before the Director (Pallchayat), who ailowed the revision, set aside the order of the District Collector and remanded the matter for passmg a fresh order after giving due opportunity of hean'ilg to both the parties. It is against this order passed by the Director (Panohayat) on 31. 12.2008; the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order is bad in law, as the Collector has reached to the right conclusion While considering the representation of the petitioner, I have gone through the contents of the orders. It appears that while deciding the representation of the petitioner, the Collector did not hear respondent No.5, Whereas, there was a direction by the High Court to pass appropriate order after affording opportunity‘fof hearing to the parties. It is on this count, the order has been set aside and the matter has been remanded by the Director (Panchayat) to the Collector. i do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Director {Panchayat} so as to interfere in this writ petition. The petition has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed summarily. // // Sdl- sum mm“ SINHA //. shyna ‘/—/. kw Juége /“ ’ /~s/. / 1 /