1 2025:CGHC:9017 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3779 of 2018 1 - Shabana Bano D/o D/o Saleem Anasari, Aged About 35 Years R/o Nazir Ahmad Khan, Village- Surajpur, (Mishragali), P. S. And Tehsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Women And Child Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Janpad Panchayat Surajpur, Through Chief Executive Officer, Revenue And Civil District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Project Officer, Unified Woman And Child Development Project Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector, Surajpur, Revenue And Civil District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.02.2025 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 Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- quashing the impugned list (filed as Annexure P-1), passed and issued from the office of Respondent No. 4, in respect to your petitioner and further to direct the office of the respondent No. 4 to complete the selection process by issuing appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Aanganbadi Sahayika, Panch Mandir Ward (Ward No. 3), Bhaiyathan Road Surajpur. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner participated in the recruitment for the post of Anganwadi worker at Centre No.3, Panch Mandir Ward, Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur particularly for Ward No.3. The application of the petitioner alone was received by the selection committee. The petitioner submitted the voter list and a certificate issued by the Councilor of Ward No.3 to demonstrate that she was a resident of Ward No.3, where the appointment of Anganwadi worker was proposed. He would further submit that the petitioner was selected, but the appointment order was not issued on two grounds: (1) she was not a resident of Ward No.3 rather she was a resident of Ward No.4 and (2) only one application was received. He would also submit that the decision taken by respondent No.4 is erroneous. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker, Centre No.3, Panch Mandir Ward, Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that after the delimitation of the wards of Municipal Council, Surajpur, the petitioner became a resident of Ward No.4, therefore, her name was not considered for appointment, although she was selected. He would further contend that only one application was received, and as a result, the selection committee decided to invite applications again from eligible candidates. He would also submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The petitioner participated in the recruitment for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Panch Mandir Ward, Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur. After scrutiny, she was found eligible for appointment. A select list was issued, but the appointment order was not issued on two grounds (1) the petitioner was not a resident of Ward No.3, and (2) only one application was received. The documents filed by the petitioner would show that she was a resident of Ward No.3. In the petition, the petitioner has annexed a copy of the voter list and a certificate issued by the Councillor of Ward No.3 to substantiate that she was a resident of Ward No.3. If only one eligible candidate submitted an application, that cannot be a ground to deny the appointment. It is possible that there were no other eligible candidates, therefore, only one application was received. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to issue an -4- order of appointment considering the claim of the petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Worker, Ward No.3. 7. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall not be entitled to get the arrears of salary or back-wages. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi