1 2025:CGHC:25527 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4499 of 2025 1 - Chandrakanta W/o Sanjeev Kumar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Avarid, Post- Semra, Tahsil- Navagarh, Distt- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Project Officer Integrated Child Development Services Project, Janjgir Champa, Distt- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3 - Janpad Panchayat Navagarh Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Distt- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panle Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 18/06/2025 1. The petitioner has prayed the following relief:- 1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to take appropriate decision upon objection SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.06.19 10:18:58 +0530 2 dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure-8) by a reasoned and speaking order. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner as BPL category candidate for the post of Anganbadi Assistant. 3. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belonging to Below Poverty Line (BPL) candidate and had applied for the post of Anganbadi Sahayika at Anganbadi Centre, Village- Awarid, Dist- Janjgir-Champa under an advertisement issued by the Respondent No. 2 dated 16.12.2024. The petitioner submitted her application along with the necessary document but when the final evaluation sheet issued on 03.04.2025 in which no mark has been allotted for BPL category and her name finds place in Sr. No. 6 in the said evaluation sheet. He would further submit that the petitioner is belonging to the BPL category and if the mark would be allotted under the BPL category, her position in the evaluation sheet would be above from other candidates. He would also submit that the Respondent No. 2 is called objection on 07.04.2025 and in-compliance thereof, the petition has filed her objection on 15.04.2025 (Annexure-P/8) but till date, her objection has not been decided by the Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the petition has been filed for direction to the Respondent No. 2 to take a decision on her objection. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the present petition is pre-mature as objection of the petitioner is still pending. However, he would submit that he has no objection if any 3 direction is to be given to the authorities concerned for early disposal of her objection in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. Considering the limited prayer made in the petition with respect to the decision on the objection dated 16.04.2025 filed by the petitioner (Annexure-P/8), the Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the objection of the petitioner filed on 16.04.2025 within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order or before the appointment which ever is earlier in accordance with law on its own merit. 6. The petitioner is directed to produce the copy of this order to the Respondent No. 2, within one week from today. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika