2025:CGHC:9723 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 1395 of 2015 Ritu Patel, D/o Madanmohan Patel, aged about 24 Years, Resident Of Sahaspuri, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh, ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya New Raipur, P.S.-Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2. The Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, 3. The Additional Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh, 5. Smt. Sushila Chauhan, W/o Revticharan Daughter Of Sunder Lal, Resident Of Sahaspuri, Mali Para, Tahsil And District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh After Marriage Residing At Village- Suloni Harijan Para, Tahsil And District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Ravi Kumar Banjare and Shri Bharat - Ram Izaardaar and Shri Narendra Kumar - Gulari Advocates. For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Shri Shailesh Puriya, P.L. . For Respondent No.5 : Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on board 20/06/2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 19/03/2015 passed in revision case No. A-20 -89 / 2014-2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Court of Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) by which the revision filed by the respondent No.5 against an order dated 11/02/2013 passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh in case No. 11/A-89/2012-2013 (Annexure P/4) was allowed. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.06.24 17:37:40 +0530 -2- 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 both made an application for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker under Scheduled Caste Category for Anganbadi Center, Malipara, Gram Panchayat – Sahaspuri, Tehsil and District – Raigarh. The respondent No.5 was found suitable for appointment on the said post and vide order dated 26/05/2011, she was appointed on the said post. The appointment for the respondent No. 5 was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Additional Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) under section 91 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'Act of 1993'). The main ground of challenge was that the petitioner was initially the resident of Village – Sahaspuri, however she was subsequently married with Revticharan Chauhan and thereafter she started living with her husband at Village - Suloni and therefore her name was included in the voter list of Village – Suloni, Tehsil - Pusor. As the petitioner now is no more a resident of Sahaspuri Gram Panchayat, therefore her name could not be considered by the respondent / State for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker. Voter list of Village- Suloni for the year 2010 was appended in which the name of the respondent No.5 was at serial No. 466. The Additional Collector vide it's order dated 11/02/2013 allowed the appeal holding that the respondent No.5 no more remains the native of Village- Sahaspuri, therefore her candidature could have not been considered and rejection of the objection raised by the candidates were ignored. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No. 5 was set aside and direction was given to Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Raigarh to process the application of the eligible candidate for appointment of the post of Anganbadi Worker. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No. 5 filed a revision petition before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur which was allowed by the impugned order which is challenged before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 was married on 05/11/2010 to Reviticharan Chouhan, R/o. Suloni, Tehsil - Pusor and she no more a resident of Village - Sahaspuri and her name was also included in the -3- voter list of Village – Suloni and according to the necessary eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker, the candidate has to be local resident of Village and the name should be recorded in the voter list. He further submit that the Additional Collector has rightly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and the learned Commissioner committed an error of law in holding it otherwise. Therefore impugned order of the Commissioner requires to be set aside and order of the Additional Collector to be restored. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the name of the petitioner was included in the voter list of Village – Sahaspuri, Tehsil Pusor in the year, 2010. The application for appointment in the post of Anganbadi Worker was invited on 30/09/2010. After her marriage she is residing with her husband in the Village – Sahaspuri along with her father. He submits that this objection was also raised earlier by the petitioner before the respondent authorities and enquiry was conducted by the respondent authorities and report was also submitted by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development, Raigarh Rural dated 14/07/2011 (Annexure - P/5) that she is residing in the Village – Sahaspuri with her father and husband as a Ghar Jawai and an affidavit has also been placed and no objection has been raised by the Sarpanch and Sachiva of the Village Panchayat and the appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Anganbadi Worker is done in accordance with the rules of the Government. Apart from this he submits that the voter list which has been filed by the petitioner and relied upon by the Additional Collector appears to be a forged one as it does not contain the entire voter list only one page was filed and whereas he has filed certified copy of the same in which in Sl. No. 466 (Annexure R/7), name of one Sitaram Chauhan is mentioned. Therefore,the reliance placed on such doubtful voter list has rightly been discarded by the learned Commissioner. Therefore there is no merit in this writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. 6. State Counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the lis is between the petitioner and respondent No.5 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. -4- 8. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondent No.5 was residing at Village – Sahaspuri. It is also not in dispute that the application for appointment for the post of Anganbadi Worker was invited in the month of September, 2010. The petitioner and the respondent and other candidates submitted their respective applications. The petitioner married in the month of November, 2010. The petitioner was appointed in the month of May, 2011. The appeal was preferred by the petitioner only on the ground that the respondent No.5 is no more a resident of Village – Sahaspuri and at present she was residing with her husband at Village – Suloni. The learned Additional Collector placing reliance upon the voter list found that the respondent No.5 is a resident of Village – Suloni and thereby allowed the appeal of the respondent No.5. On a revision been filed, the learned Commissioner gave a categorical finding that even after the marriage, the respondent No.5 is residing at Village – Sahaspuri. It also observed that the application of the petitioner was rejected by the concerned authority. Perusal of record also indicates that there are two voter list of Village – Suloni is on record. One is filed by the petitioner and another is filed by the respondent No.5. The genuiness of the same requires a factual finding enquiry. The learned Commissioner came to a definite conclusion that even after marriage the petitioner is residing with her father and apart from this Annexure P/5 also indicates that the petitioner residing in Village – Sahaspuri after the marriage. Therefore in the opinion of this Court, the learned Commissioner has not committed any jurisdictional error or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. No cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish