C^f^Z IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT^ETITIQN^Sl No. ?^)Sof2007 PETITIONER: £.- RESPONDENTS: Smt. Jaikumari W/o Shri Shobharam Patel, age 32 years, R/o Laladhurwa, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh) Versus- 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department of Women & Child welfare, D. K. S. Bhawan, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Collector, District Raigarh, Office of Collector (Women & Child Development) at Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service Project, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 4. The Gram Panchayt Dhorabhata, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 5. M^m Bai D/o Shri Balmukund Kalar, Age unknown, R/o Dhorabhata, Tahsil Sarmangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ^''.-' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC.OR ANY QTHER DIRECTIONOR ORDERTO DO 3USTICE IN THE MATTER. '•'•''->^_ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTrS6ARH AT BD-ASPUR WritPetition (S) No. 1213 of 2007 Petitioner Smt. Jaikumari Verais Respondents State of Chhattiq<rh A others Single Benchs Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. ^gm'hotri. Present: Mr. SouraUi Shorma, Advocate for -ttie petitioner. Mr. Vinay Pandey, Ponel Lawyer' for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. ORbER (Passed on I" bny of Mareh. 2007) The folbwirg order of the Coirt wos passed by Satish K. ^gnihotri. J. 1. Leorned counsel appear-ir^ f<w the petitioner sifcmits that •the petitioner was duly selected as Anganbadi Karyakwta in 6rom Panchoyat bhorahabhata, Tdisil Swangarh, District-Roigar+i vide order dated 26-10- 2006 (^rmexure P-B). 2. On the basis of complaint made by respondent No. 5 that the petitioner s husbond is a Panch of Grmn Ponchayot and as such the petitioner is disqualified for being selected on the post of Anganbadi KaFyakarta. 3. Lewned counsel appeariry for- the petitioner contended •rtiat •the nome of (•r the Panch ond tiie name of her husbond is one, but •ttie etected Panch is not the husband of the petitioner. It is further contended that without examining this ospects, the Project Officer has disqualified the petitioner froffl post of Ang<nbadi Karyakarta. 4. The respondent No. 2 is directed to look into all the allegations and after holding approprjate inquiry, pces -ttie appropriate order within a re<sonoble time, in accordance wi-th AongonbtKli Scheme and !<»» 5. With the above direction, •this petition stonds disposed of. No order os to costs. Consequently, M.(W.)P. No, 790/2007, an application for grant of interim relief stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Subhasb ^.