1 2025:CGHC:29951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 425 of 2017  Smt. Tana Mandal W/o Supranya Mandal, Aged About 28 Years R/o P V 129, Govindpur, Tahsil Pankhajur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner, Bastar Division, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4. Project Officer, Integratged Child Development Project, Block Koilibeda, Pakhanjur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Koilibeda, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 6. Smt. Suniti Rai, W/o Dipankar Rai, R/o P V 129, Govindpur, Tahsil Pankhajur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None even in two rounds. For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.03 10:52:07 +0530 2 allow the petition and be pleased to set-aside/quash the order dated 16-12-2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 2 and not to grant the appointment letter to the respondent No. 6. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. The applications were invited for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Village PV-129 Govindpur, Gram Panchayat Esebeda, District North Bastar Kanker, on 09.03.2015. The petitioner, respondent No. 6 and other eligible candidates submitted their applications. Respondent No. 5 appointed the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Worker vide order dated 27.07.2015. Respondent No. 6 challenged the appointment order of the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector and it was allowed vide order dated 23.12.2015. The Commissioner affirmed the findings recorded by the Collector vide order dated 16.12.2016 on the ground that respondent No. 6 secured 49.6 marks, whereas the petitioner secured 42.5 marks. It is also held by both the authorities that respondent No. 6 was a resident of that village. 3. Learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would submit that there is a concurrent finding recorded by two authorities, the Collector and the Commissioner, Jagdalpur. They would further submit that the appointment of the petitioner was canceled on the grounds that respondent No. 6 is meritorious to the petitioner, respondent No. 6 is a resident of Gram Panchayat Esebeda and the objection raised by respondent No. 6 was not considered by the selection committee. 4. I have heard Mr. Gupta and Mr. Kotecha and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Perusal of the documents would show that after the submission of the 3 applications, objections were invited. Respondent No. 6 raised an objection and it was not decided whereas the order of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 6 challenged the said order before the Collector and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 23.12.2015. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, and it was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2016. 6. The learned Collector and Commissioner have recorded concurrent findings to the effect that:- (a) The objection raised by respondent No. 6 was not decided by the Selection Committee. (b) Respondent No. 6 is meritorious to the petitioner. (c) Respondent No. 6 is a resident of Gram Panchayat Esebeda, District North Bastar Kanker. 7. Taking into consideration the concurrent findings of facts recorded by two authorities, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant