AF K 1 ‘> 1 K HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5815 of 2007 PETITIONER Laxmi Sahu. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri H.V.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 to 3. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. Shri F.S.Khare, Advocate for the respondent No. 5 V ORDER ORAL) (Passed on O7 day ofOctober, 2009 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Angan Badi Worker on contract basis by the respondent No.‘ 4 vide order dated 12m September, 2006 (Annemre P/l). The respondent No. 5, challenging the selection of the petitioner on the post of Angan Badi worker, tiled an appeal being Appeal No. 101/B-121/2005—2006 before the respondent No. 3. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 16m March 2007 (Annexure P/2). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection at the time of notice that this petition is not maintainable as alternative statutory: expeditious remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (forshort ‘the Act, 1993’). Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the appointment of the petitioner was not under any rules, the provisions of the Act; 1993 would not be applicable for the purpose of filing a statutory appeal. Shri Shanna relies on provisions of Rule 2(a) ofthe Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Women and Child Development Service Recruitment) Rules, 1999 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1999’). Per contra, Shri Bhaduri, ' leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondent 1 to 3 and Shri Kachhwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submit that Rules, 1999 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (l2) of Section 95 read with sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, 1993. Thus, any order passed either under the rules or otherwise for appointment of Angan Badi worker, would be governed under the provisions ofthe Act, 1993. This very question came into consideration earlier before this Court in Smt. Ram Ba? v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others}, wherein it was held / that the appointment of Angan Badi worker is under the provisions of Act, 1993 and as such, any order passed under the Act, 1993 is appellable under the provisions of Section 91 ofthe Act, 1993 read with Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. The contention of the petitioner that the appointment order is not passed under the provisions of the Act, 1993 is noticed to be rejected as admittedly, the order was passed by the respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 5 has availed the first appellate remedy by filing an appeal before the respondent No. 3. The order passed by the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Additional Collector is appellable before the Director, Panchayat. i 209$ (ill) ,Ww iii-(XI 14. @ In View of the foregoing, the objection of the respondents that alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, and the petitioner should not take recourse to extraordinary jun's‘diction of a writ court, merits acceptance. This Court, in the matter ofSmt. Ram Baz’ (supra), observed as under: “8. A common thread running into the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is that, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efticacious alternative remedy. Where a hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure.” ‘ ‘ Thus, the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Smt. Ram Baz‘ (supra). 10. In View of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed as‘ not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to be petitioner to take recourse to alternative statutory remedy, if so advised. No order asto costs. Satish K.‘Agnihotri Judge Sd/r . .