HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition 182 N0. 2339 of 2008 Smt. Goswami, Rampyari W/o Bharat D/o Shri Puri (Ladua) Goswami, Rameshwar aged about Git 38 years occupation terminated Anganbadi Worker, Anganbadi Centre Sirki, resident of Village Sirki, Post PETITIONER Rawa, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary Women ”H,” . and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, DKS 2. Bhawan, The Director, Raipur (CG) Directorate of Woman and Child The The Collector, District Korba, Program District Officer, Korba Woman (CG). and Child 5. Development, The Chief Executive Korba (CG). Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Poudi P4 Development, Raipur (CG). Uproda, District Korba (CG). 6. The Panchayat Sarpanch, Poudi Gram Uproda, Panchayat District Korba Katori (CG). Nagoi, Janpad (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) B: H'ble atish K. A nihotri Shri Shailendra Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi,‘ Govt. Advocate for the State. Present : R ORAL ORDE (Passed on 24m day of April, 2008) I‘. The petitioner, by this petition, challenges the validity of the order dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure P/l), whereby, the petitioner was removed from the post of Anganbadi worker on the basis of resolution dated 21 08.2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Gram Panchayat Katorinagaoi, and thereafter approved by Women and Child Welfare Permanent Committee of Janpad Panchayat. 2. Admittedly, there is statutory provision under the provisions of Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules, I995) read with section 91 of the . . S on Mr. S J. Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ' the Adhiniyam, 1993). . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appeal cannot be filed because the impugned order was passed at the instance of the Collector. . Rule 3 (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules, 1995) provides that in the case of an order passed by the Collector under any provision of the Act or rules or bye laws made thereunder, appeal is maintainable to the Commissioner. Now modified as Director. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that no alternative remedy is available, is contrary to the statutory provisions. . This Court, in the matter of Smt. Ram Bai .Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (W.P.(S) No. 6031 of 2006), decided on 24.04.2008, held that, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. Where 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. . In the present case, no exceptional circumstances exist wherein the High Court should make departure from the normal rule. Thus, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. However, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to statutory altemative forum that may be available to him, if so advised. No order asto costs. /"’1’— i. i SdJ- l i / i h K, Agnihotri l 2t Satis Judge Sahu ]