1 2025:CGHC:5892 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3082 of 2024 Lata Mastake D/o Fagulal Mastake Aged About 31 Years Posted as Aanganbadi Assistant (Sahayika) at Banranka Aanganbadi Center No. 1, R/o Village - Banranka, Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Woman and Child Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - District Project Officer Woman and Child Development Department, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Project Officer Integrated Child Development Programme, Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) 7 - Block Medical Officer Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) 8 - Dhankunwar D/o Parshuram R/o Village - Banranka, Tahsil - Thankhamhariya, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Mandwi Bharadwaj, YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.07 19:02:19 +0530 2 Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 31.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Mandwi Bharadwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7. 2. The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg C.G. in Revenue Case No.93-B-121 Year 2023-24, by which the revision has been dismissed while confirming the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Additional Collector, District Bemetara in Revenue Case No.202310232600002/B-121/2023-24 holding that the final select list dated 04.10.2023 put in accordance with law and refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Collector, District Bemetara (C.G.). 3. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the selection process of the post of Aanganbadi Worker at Banraka Centre No.1, Village Panchayat Banranka, Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.). 3 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02.05.2024 and other orders also sub- ordinate authorities, and pleased to pass an order for appointment of the petitioner who is entitled for appointment of the Aanganbadi Worker amongst others. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 4. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was aspirant for the post of Aanganbadi Worker, as such, upon issuance of notification for inviting application for appointment of Aanganbadi Worker at Banranka Centre No.1, Village Panchayat Banranka, Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) on 22.08.2023. The petitioner along with two other candidates including respondent No.8 filed their candidature. The Scrutniy Committee after due scrutiny issued a provisional list dated 04.10.2023, by which 11 aspirants found eligible for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi Worker. In the said provisional list, respondent No.8 has been placed at Sl. No.1 whereas the petitioner has been placed at Sl. No.11. Thereafter, objections were called for, on which, the present petitioner has made an objection stating that respondent No.8 is not eligible for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi Worker. Since the 4 objection of the petitioner was turned down, therefore, she has filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Collector, Bemetara. The Additional Collector, Bemetara without considering the merits of the case has held that the appeal filed by the petitioner in a premature stage and the same is not in accordance with law vide its order dated 29.11.2023. 5. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bemetara, the petitioner has preferred a revision under Section 44(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Commissioner, Durg Division, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2024. Hence, the present petition. 6. Return has been filed on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7, in which the State has controverting the grounds raised by the petitioner. It has been pleaded in the return that due procedure has been followed in the appointment of Aanganbadi Worker and there is no illegality, as such, they have filed 11 documents demonstrating that the petitioner has not obtained higher marks than that of respondent No.8, therefore, she could not be selected. 7. Respondent No.8 has also filed her counter-affidavit to the petition stating that without any sufficient grounds, instant petition has been filed. Respondent No.8 was selected on the basis of highest 5 marks obtained by her whereas the petitioner could not be selected because she found place at Sl. No.11 in the merit list, as such, in order to any how disturb the selection procedure, she has filed this writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Commissioner, Durg Division has not considered the real aspect of the matter and has passed an order in very causal manner, as such, the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Bemetara as well as Commissioner, Durg Division are liable to be set aside. He further submits that the petitioner is a physically challenged woman, however, it has not been considered by the Additional Collector, Bemetara and the marks for the same has not been given to her. It has been contended that the petitioner is an experienced person as she had worked as a Sahayika, as such, 6 marks for the said purpose was also not given to her. It has been lastly contended that respondent No.8 has been selected in an illegal manner and her appointment deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that after issuance of select list, appointment orders have been issued and respondent No.8 has been appointment as Aanganbadi Worker at Banranka Centre No.1, Village Panchayat Banranka, Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.). He further submits that in this writ petition, only the select list has been challenged and subsequently, the order of appointment has already been issued, 6 which is not under challenge, as such, in absence of challenge to the appointment order, instant petition is not maintainable. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the documents annexed along with writ petitions. 11. From perusal of the contents of the writ petition as well as reliefs sought for by the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner is only challenging the provisional select list dated 04.10.2023, in which respondent No.8 has finds place at Sl. No.1 on the basis of marks obtained by her in the select list whereas the petitioner has finds place at Sl. No.11; meaning thereby that before the petitioner, about 9 persons are there, as such, even if the petitioner is given marks for her experience, she is not eligible for appointment on said post. Further, petitioner has not challenged the appointment order, as such, in absence of challenge to appointment order, petitioner cannot be granted relief as claimed for. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems that the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief for setting aside the orders dated 02.05.2024 and 29.11.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division as well as Additional Collector, Bemetara. 13. Concludingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has miserably failed to make out a case for interference in 7 exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India within the four corners of law. I accordingly, hold that there is no reason to exercise the power of judicial review in this instant matter, as the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality, irrationality or unreasonableness in the impugned order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg C.G. in Revenue Case No.93-B-121 Year 2023-24 affirming the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Additional Collector, District Bemetara in Revenue Case No.202310232600002/B-121/2023- 24. 14. As a fallout and upshot of the above-stated legal discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh