-1- 2025:CGHC:11414 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3078 of 2018 Smt. Hiramani Singh W/o W/o Late Ramchandra Singh Aged About 29 Years Caste- Kanwar, R/o Village Kevra (Nawapara), Tehsil Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue and Civil District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue and Civil District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Janpad Panchayat Lakhanpur, Through Chief Executive officer, Revenue and Civil District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Project officer, Unified Woman and Child Development Project Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector Sarguja, Revenue and Civil District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Kavita Singh W/o W/o Suresh Kumar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Kevra (Nawapara), P. S. Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Commissioner Sarguja Division, Revenue and Civil District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.03.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable Writ (S), Order (S) and Direction (s) by quashing the impugned order dated 21/03/2018 (filed as Annexure P-1), passed and issued from the office of commissioner Sarguja Division (C.G.) (Respondent No. 7), in respect to your petitioner and further to restore the order dated 15/06/2016 (Annexure P/2). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents and courts below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2) The petitioner has filed this petition against the order passed by the Court of Commissioner, Division Sarguja, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, dated 21.03.2018, in Panchayat Appeal Case No. 161/B-121/2015-16, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No.6 was allowed and the order passed by the Collector, Sarguja dated 15.06.2016 was set-aside. 3) Facts of the present case, are that, the petitioner, respondent No.6 and other eligible candidates applied for appointment to the post of ‘Anganwadi Worker’ -3- at Center Navapara, Village Kevra, Tehsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja. Respondent No. 6 was appointed vide order dated 26.08.2014. The petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Collector, Sarguja against the order of appointment dated 26.08.2014 on the ground that the petitioner was meritorious to respondent No.6 as she secured 69.44, whereas respondent No.6 secured 43.60 marks. 4) Respondent No.6 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Sarguja, who vide order dated 21.03.2018 allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.6 and set-aside the order passed by the Collector, Sarguja on the ground that the petitioner passed Class-12 th, required qualification, after the cutoff date. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the order passed by the Commissioner, Sarguja, Division, Sarguja is erroneous as the petitioner is a meritorious candidate and she secured 69.44 marks, whereas respondent No.6 secured only 43.60 marks. He would further argue that the second appeal preferred before the Commissioner, Division Sarguja, was not maintainable; thus, he would pray to quash the order passed by the Commissioner, Division Sarguja, dated 21.03.2018. 6) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the State and respondent No.6 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Khan. They would submit that against the order of the Collector, Sarguja, an appeal was preferred whereas according to the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, respondent No.6 should have preferred a revision. They would further submit -4- that the nomenclature of an application would not affect its merit. They would further contend that the required qualification for the post of ‘Anganwadi Worker’ was the 12 th or 11 th (preceding) board examination. They would also contend that the petitioner had attached a copy of the mark-sheet of Class-10 th only and she passed the Class-12 th examination after the expiry of the last date for the submission of the application form. They would also contend that the learned Commissioner, Division Sarguja had considered these aspects of the matter and allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.6. 7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. K. Pavitra v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 2565, held that the nomenclature of an application is of no consequence and Courts must assess the contents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the nomenclature given to an application is of absolutely no consequence, what is of importance is the substance of the application. The relevant paras-21 & 22 are reproduced as under:- “21. Recently, in M C Mehta v Union of India [(2019) 2 SCJ 640 ], a two judge Bench of this Court rejected an application filed before it seeking a clarification that the applicant is permitted to carry out construction on the land in question in the following terms: “…the view expressed by this Court in Gurdip Singh Uban cannot be limited only to applications for modification, clarification or recall. There is a growing tendency to provide different nomenclatures to applications to side- -5- step the rigours and limitations imposed on an applicant and the Court in dealing with a review petition. Applications can be and are titled as applications for directions, rehearing, reconsideration, revisiting etc. etc. One has only to open a thesaurus and find an equivalent word and give an application an appropriate nomenclature so that it could be taken up for consideration in open Court and on its merits and not as a review petition by circulation. In our opinion, the nomenclature given to an application is of absolutely no consequence- what is of importance is the substance of the application and if it is found, in substance, to be an application for review, it should be dealt with by the Court as such, and by circulation. (Emphasis Supplied) 22. The Court noted the growing practice, despite the decision of this Court in Gurdip Singh, of filing applications before this Court with different nomenclatures in order to bypass or circumvent the procedure envisaged for the consideration of the reliefs sought. This Court clarified that the nomenclature of an application is of no consequence and courts must assess the contents and reliefs sought in the application to determine what is the true nature of the application.” 9) The first contention raised by Mr. Khan with regard to the maintainability of the appeal preferred by respondent No.6 before the Commissioner, Division Sarguja, is hereby rejected, on the ground that the nomenclature of the application is of no consequence. 10) A scrutiny of the record of the learned Commissioner, Division Sarguja would show that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification i.e. 12 th pass on the date of the advertisement, particularly on the last date of the submission of the application form. The petitioner failed to produce documents to establish that on the cut-off date, she had the requisite qualification. -6- 11) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the aforesaid recruitment process in the absence of required eligibility criteria; the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Sarguja Division, dated 21.03.2018 does not require interference by this Court. 12)Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM