1 2025:CGHC:9255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3286 of 2014 1 – Smt. Soudamini W/o Amritlal Rawat Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Podagarh Block And Tahsil Saraipali P.S. Saraipali Civil And Revenue Distt. Mahasamund C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur C.G., 2 – Additional Commissioner Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - The Collector Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund C.G., 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Saraipali Distt. Mahasamund C.G., 5 - Rukhmani @ Suruchi (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 05-02-2025 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P. L. and Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 21/02/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed seeking following relief:- 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashing/ set aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-1) as well as the order dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure P-2). 2 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Fact of the case reflects that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Aaganwadi Worker at Aaganwadi Centre, Podagarh Janpad Panchayat Saraipali vide an order dated 29.01.2007 issued by respondent No.4 (Annexure P-3). The said order of appointment was subject to challenge by one Rukmani @ Suruchi W/o Raidhar Gada Resident of village Podagarh, Village Panchayat Sirboda Development Block and Tahsil Saraipali District Mahasamund (CG). It is pertinent to add here that Smt. Rukmani was arrayed as respondent No.5 in this writ petition and during the pendency of this petition, she died and her name was deleted from the cause title. The challenge was made by Late Rukmani on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Caste whereas the petitioner belongs to other backward class and preference ought to have been granted to Scheduled Caste candidate. The another ground is that Rukmani was living below poverty line whereas the petitioner had 10- 12 acre of agricultural land and comes from a well to do family. Name of the petitioner is not included in the voter list of village Podagarh and her relative is Upsarpanch of village Panchayat Sirboda therefore, the appointment order of the petitioner be set aside. The application was resisted by the petitioner herein. Though various grounds were raised before the Collector/ respondent No.3 however the appointment of the petitioner was quashed vide its order dated 10.06.2013 in revenue case No.207/89 year 2007-08 on the ground that the relative of the petitioner is an Upsarpanch of village Panchayat Sirboda which is in violation of the instruction dated 06.01.2000 of the State Government which states that any relative of Government employee, Panchayat/ Nagriya Local Bodies either elected or nominated will not be appointed as Anganbadi worker. That order was challenged by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 who affirmed the order of the Collector and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide its order dated 18.06.2014 in Revenue Appeal Case No.439/A/89 year 2012-13. This order is under challenge before this Court. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was qualified and after due assessment of the candidature of the petitioner, the order of appointment Annexure P-3 was issued. Respondent No.3 committed an error in allowing the appeal filed by Rukmani on the ground that the relative/ brother-in-law of the petitioner is an Upsarpanch of village Panchayat Sirboda whereas perusal of the order dated 10.06.2013 does not reflect as to whether any enquiry was conducted in this regard inviting the stand of the petitioner on such allegation. He submits that though the appointment of the petitioner was canceled on the ground that her relative is an Upsarpanch of the said village, however in the reply a defence has been taken by the State that the petitioner is not the resident of village-Sirboda which is impermissible. Even otherwise the petitioner is a resident of village- Podagarh and a residential certificate is also appended as Annexure P-8. Therefore, he submits that the order dated 18.06.2014 Annexure P-1 & Annexure P-2 may be set aside. 4. Per contra State counsel submits that as per return filed by the State the petitioner was not resident of Sirboda and the Collector as well as Commissioner have applied their mind and gave a categorical finding which does not require any interference by this Court. 5. Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate adopts the arguments of State counsel. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Annexure P-3 is the appointment order of the petitioner dated 29.01.2007. Perusal of it indicates that after assessment of the District Level Scrutiny Committee and on recommendation of Collector, Mahasamund, the petitioner was appointed as Aaganbadi worker in Aaganbadi Centre, village - Podagarh. It appears that the said order was subject to challenge by the deceased Rukmani before the collector raising various grounds as narrated above however, the Collector found that the brother-in- law (elder brother of husband) is an elected Upsarpanch of village Sirboda and therefore, in light of instructions of the State Government dated 06.01.2000, the petitioner cannot be appointed as Aaganwadi Worker and canceled the appointment order. It does not appear from this order as to whether before passing such an order 4 any enquiry with regard to allegations was conducted or the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. The learned Collector relied upon the minutes of the proceedings of Panchayat indicating the name of Krishnacharan Rawat Upsarpanch and assumed that he is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. This order was affirmed by the Commissioner vide Annexure P-1. The question as to whether Krishnacharan Rawat was the Upsarpanch of village panchayat Sirboda is a fidning of fact and has to be determined on recording evidence to establish the relationship and does not appear that such exercise was done by the petitioner or any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner in this regard. The State in its return has taken a new ground that the petitioner is not the resident of village Panchayat Sirboda whereas cancellation of her appointment order was not on this ground and apart from this the certificate of residence was also appended in this writ petition indicating the residence of the petitioner at village Podagarh. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot sustain and liable to be set aside. 8. Consequently, the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 are quashed and writ petition is allowed. However respondents would be at liberty to conduct enquiry if any against the petitioner in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.03.04 11:17:12 +0530