1 2025:CGHC:16945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5575 of 2017 1 - Basanti Roy W/o Vishwajeet Roy Aged About 34 Years R/o Village P. V. 68, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Woman And Child Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, North Bastar, Kanker, District North Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Pakhanjur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Programme, Pakhanjur Koyalibeda 02, District North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 6 - Janpad Panchayat, Koyalibeda, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Koyalibeda, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 7 - Chandana Roy W/o Sashankar Roy R/o P. V. 68, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate For State Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.7 Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the respective offices of the respondents including the records of selection process for Anganbadi Karyakarta in Anganbadi Kendra Satya Nagar, PV 68, Tahsil Pakhanjur from the concerned respondents. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the order dated 19.05.2017 passed in Appeal Case No. 07/B-121/15-16 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure P/1) as far as it relates with not passing any direction for appointment of petitioner. 10.3) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the order dated 10.02.2015 passed in Appeal Case No. 09/B-121/2012-13 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure P/2) as far as it relates with not passing any direction for appointment of petitioner and the part in which direction has been given for making appointment may also be set-aside, same being illegal. 10.4) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.5) Cost of the petition.” 2. Mr. Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Gram Panchayat Koyalibeda for the post of Anganwadi Worker, the petitioner, respondent No.7 and other eligible candidates submitted their application forms. He would further submit that the petitioner was meritorious and thus, she was appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Koyalibeda vide order dated 26.09.2011. He would further contend that vide order dated 3 04.07.2012, respondent No.7 was appointed by the Project Officer, therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer against the said order. He would also contend that the Sub-Divisional Officer quashed the appointment of respondent No.7 and confirmed the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 13.05.2013. Mr. Yadav would also submit that respondent No.7 preferred an appeal before the Collector and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was quashed vide order dated 10.02.2015. Mr. Yadav would further argue that the Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Collector vide order dated 19.05.2017. He would also argue that when the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 26.09.2011 by the competent authority, there was no occasion for the Project Officer to issue an appointment order in favour of respondent No.7 dated 04.07.2012. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Yadav. He would submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not competent to hear an appeal against the order of appointment of Anganwadi worker. He would further submit that according to the guidelines issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh, the appeal lies before the Collector. He would contend that the Collector while setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer remitted back the matter to the Appointing Authority to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law. He would also submit that the -4- Commissioner has affirmed the findings recorded by the Collector and thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contentions made by Mr. Kotecha. 5. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker vide order dated 26.09.2011 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Koyalibeda. The Project Officer without having the authority of law issued an appointment order in favour of respondent No.7 on 04.07.2012 and that order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) illegally exercised the power of the Appellate Authority and quashed the appointment order issued in favour of respondent No.7 vide order dated 13.05.2013. Therefore, the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) was set aside by the Collector vide order dated 10.02.2015. The Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Collector vide order dated 19.05.2017. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the Collector and the Commissioner both have passed well reasoned orders, thereby remitting back the matter to the appointing authority to take a decision with regard to the appointment of Anganwadi Worker. The order was passed by the Collector on 10.02.2015 and we are in the year 2025, therefore, the appointing authority/competent authority is directed to take a decision with regard to the appointment preferably within 5 a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha