1 2025:CGHC:28136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3880 of 2021 1 - Sarita Singh W/o Shivkaran Aged About 35 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Anganwari Worker Center Shivdagar Village - Panchayat - Surra, Police Station And Tahsil - Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector Balrampur District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Program Officer Women And Child Development Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Project Officer Women And Child Development Project Office Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.06.27 16:36:46 +0530 2 6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat - Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Surekha Singh D/o W/o Biphan Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Surra, Police Station And Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, GA For Respondent No.6: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent No.7: Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 26/06/2025 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.07.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Sarguja, Division (Ambikapur) in Panchayat Revision Case No.202007960100003/38/v-89/2020-21, affirming the order dated 22.05.2020 passed by the Collector, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, whereby the Appeal filed by respondent No.7 was allowed and the appointment order of the petitioner herein for the post of Anganwadi Assistant dated 18.05.2018, was cancelled. 3 2. Necessary facts of the case are that respondent No.6 issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Center Shivdagar and in pursuance of the advertisement, petitioner, respondent No.7 and other candidates applied for the said post. The petitioner was duly selected and in her favour appointment order dated 18.05.2018 has also been issued for the post of Anganwadi Assistant by the SECC, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur for Village Panchayat Surra, Anganwadi Centre, Shivdagar. Thereafter, respondent No.7 challenged the said appointment order by filing an Appeal before the Collector Balrampur, which was allowed and the appointment order dated 22.05.2020 has been cancelled, which has been affirmed by the impugned order. Hence this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of appointment i.e. 18.05.2018, the petitioner's name was duly mentioned in the SECC-2011 (Socio Economic and Caste Census- 2011) Final List Rural, but the Collector only on the basis of survey conducted in the year 2002, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner because the petitioner's name was not included and the name of brother of her father-in-law was mentioned in the list and the petitioner failed to establish that she is also a member of the family. Although on the date of the appointment, the petitioner was duly possessing the requisite qualification for the appointment on 4 the post of Anganwadi Assistant and the Selection Committee on the basis of merit, selected the petitioner. Lastly, he submits that the Collector has no right to reduce 6 marks towards BPL from the total marks allotted to the petitioner, therefore, he prays to allow this Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State & respondent No.6 submit that at the time of issuance of the advertisement, the petitioner did not belong to the BPL category. However, he would not dispute the fact that her name has duly been included in the SECC- 2011 Final List Rural, which relates to the BPL list in which the name of the petitioner was clearly mentioned and the said list was published prior to appointment. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 would support the impugned order. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, in the present case, in pursuance of the Appeal filed by respondent No. 7, the appointment order of the petitioner herein was challenged, as the Selection Committee had awarded 42.30 marks to the petitioner and 36.64 marks to respondent No.7, therefore, the petitioner was selected for the said post. Learned Collector in Appeal found that at the time of selection, the petitioner was not possessing the requisite BPL certificate and the certificate which 5 was produced by the petitioner belongs to the brother of her father- in-law and she failed to file any document to show that she is a member of joint family and did not rely on the report filed by the CEO Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, though the CEO, on the basis of verification of the BPL certificate in favour of the petitioner, found the same to be correct. Further, during the course of hearing, the petitioner has also filed a document of the BPL survey of the year 2011, in which the petitioner's name is clearly mentioned, which was not disputed by the State. 8. It appears that on the date of appointment, the petitioner belongs to the BPL category, so the Collector has wrongly reduced the marks and cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, which is not justifiable. 9. In the matter of Vijay Kumar Mishra and another vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna and others (2016) 9 SCC 313, it has been observed that it is only at the time of appointment (if occasion so arises) the question of eligibility of a candidate is to be seen. 10.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. 11.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka