C) h RESPONDENTS (REVIS‘IONER) ........ $mgEa B@n©§? 3mg KU. HEMLATA , AGED - 20 YEARS D/o SHRI DASHRATH PRASAD R/o- VILLAGE — NEWSA, TEHSIL — PENDRAROAD, DISTRICT - BILASPUR (c. G.) VERsus/ . 1. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYAT, CHHATrISGARH, /H. Q.~— RAIPUR. 2. THE ADDL. COLLECTOR, PENDRARAOD, DISTRICT — BILASPUR (C. G.) 3./' CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANPAD PANCHAYAT,GOURELA, TEHSIL — PENDRAROAD, DISTRICT — BILASPUR (C. G.) 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, GOURELA, TEHSIL — PENDRAROAD, DISTRICT - BILASPUR (C. G.) y. ------ 5. SMT. SAMARIYA BAI WIFE OF SHRI DEEENDAYAL, R/o VILLAGE - MUDAPARA, TEHSIL — PENDRAROAD, DISTRICT — BILASPUR (C. G.) '6. / SMT. PRABHAKUNWAR WIFE OF SHRI KUSHAL SINGH R/o VILLAGE — KACHHARPARA, TEHSIL — PENDRAROAD, DISTRICT — BILASPUR (c. G.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT — BILASPUR nu N\ W. P. S. No. r OF 2% / PETITIONER (RESPONDENT NO. 1) W;%® M (w Writ Petition under Article — 226/227 of the Constitution of India. HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH z BILASPUR Writ Petition_(8_) No. 155 of 2009 Petitioner Ku. Hernlata Versus Respondents The Director, Panchayat 8e others V WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 2261 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri R. K. Kesherwani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the Respondents No.1, 2 85 4. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the Respondent No.6. None for the respondent No.5. O R D E R (oral) (Passed on this 19th day of March, 2010) Heard. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 19.8.2008 (Annexure P/ 1), passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Revision Case No. 195/B‘121/07—O8, whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbadi Worker was cancelled and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Bilaspur for examining the matter in regard to appointment of Anganbadi Worker in Anganbadi Center — Mudapara/Mudatikga. 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that by order dated 30.3.2007 (Annexure P/3) the petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi Worker in Anganbadi Center —- Mudatikra, Village Panchayat —— Nevsa, Block - Gourela, District — Bilaspur. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner,’ the respondent No. 6 (Smt. Prabhat Kunwar) filed an appeal before the respondent No2/Additional Collector, Pendra Road, bearing Appeal Case \ \ No. 84/B-12l/2006-O7. During the pendency of appeal, the respondent No. 5 (Smt. Samariya Bai) filed an application for her impleadment as necessary party, which was rejected by ‘the interim order dated‘ 14.11.2007 (Annexure P/4). Subsequently, by order dated 4.1.2008 (Annexure P/ 5) passed by the Additional Collector, Pendra Road, the appeal preferred by the respondent No.6 was dismissed. The respondent No.5, challenged the interim order dated 14. 1 1.2007 before the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Revision Case No. 195/B—12l/07-08. By the impugned order dated 19.8.2008 (Annexure P/l) the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and the Collector, Bilaspur was directed to examine the matter of appointment of Anganbadi Worker. The order reads as under : ursuant to the order dated 19.8.2008, passed by the Director, Panchayat, by order dated 15. 12.2008 (Annexure P/2), passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Gourela, District — Bilaspur, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the revision petition before the Director, Panchayat, against the order dated 14.11.2007 passed by the \ . \ \ \ \ P Additional Collector, Pendra Road, the final order dated 4.1.2008 was passed in appeal. Although in the impugned order dated 19.8.2b08 there is a mention of the order dated 4.1.2008 (Annexure P/5), passed by the Additional Collector, Pendra Road iniappeal, but it appears that the same was not considered by the Director, Panchayat, Who remanded the matter by the impugned order dated 19.8.2008 (Annexure P/ 1) to the Collector, Bilaspur. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, to consider the case afresh in View of the subsequent development/order dated 4.1.2008 and to pass appropriate order accordingly. In View of the above, the order dated 19.8.2008 (Annexure P/ 1) is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division for passing a fresh order after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all the parties. No order asto costs. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, as it is stated at the bar that the power 0f Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh to hear revision under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniya, 1993/haslbe‘en transferred and assigned to the Commissioner of the respective Revenue Division F7 .