-1- 2025:CGHC:28901 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4577 of 2018 Smt. Daso Bai Dhurve W/o Shri Nand Kumar Dhurve, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Ghotiya, Tahsil - Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner, Durg Division, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Janpad Panchayat Manpur, Through Its Chief Executive officer, Manpur, Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Project officer, I.C.D.A. Manpour, Tahsil - Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Punita Bai, W/o Shri Narendra Kumar, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Ghotiya, Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel lawyer For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 30.06.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ /order/direction by setting -aside/quash the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Commissioner Durg Division) in Revision Case no. 273 A-89 year 2016-17 (Annex P/1). 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2) Mr. Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker vide order dated 18.03.2016 at Centre Ghotiya No.1, Gram Panchayat Ghotiya, District Rajnandgaon. He further submits that Respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal before the District Collector challenging the petitioner’s appointment, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.06.2016. He further submits that against the said order, a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, which was allowed vide order dated 12.10.2017 on the ground that the petitioner did not possess a valid caste certificate of Gond community on the last date of the submission of the application form. Mr. Diwakar contends that the petitioner belongs to the Gond community, which is not in dispute. He further contends that subsequently, the caste certificate was issued by the competent authority and it was placed before the -3- appointing authority. He prays for quashing of the order passed by the Commissioner. 3) On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Diwakar. They would submit that as on the last date of the submission of the application form, the petitioner was not having a valid social status certificate but her name was considered for appointment. They would also submit that the Commissioner rightly set-aside the findings recorded by the Collector. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file. 5) It is not in dispute that initially the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker. The said appointment was challenged by respondent No.6 before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal and held that upon confirmation of the caste of the petitioner by the subordinate authority, marks were awarded in accordance with the rules. Accordingly, the appointment order dated 18.03.2016 (No. 401/Mukhyamantri Adhikari/J.P./2015-16, Manpur) issued by CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Manpur was upheld. Later on, the order passed by the Collector was set-aside in revision by respondent No.2/Commissioner. 6) From a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner did not possess a valid caste certificate as on the last date of the submission of the application form. Therefore, in my considered opinion, -4- respondent No.2/Commissioner did not commit any error of law in allowing the revision. 7) Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim