-1- 2025:CGHC:33293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5492 of 2018 Sukrana Begum W/o Kalim, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Badwar, Police Station Ramkola, Block Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pratappur. 4 - District Program Officer, Department Of Women And Child Development, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5- Project Officer Intrigated Child Development Project Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.07.2025 1) The present writ petition has been filed against the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent authorities in not appointing the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at Mini Anganwadi Centre, Badwar Hasuwanadi, despite her being Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- eligible and her name appearing in the selection/waiting list. 2) Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier, one Amirun Nisha was appointed to the said post on the basis of forged and fabricated certificates. He would further submit that pursuant to complaints made by the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted with the assistance of Police Station Ramkola, wherein it was found that Amirun Nisha had submitted forged mark sheets of Class 8th and 10th. Consequently, her appointment was cancelled vide order dated 27.06.2018 (Annexures P/1 and P/2), and directions were also issued for registration of FIR. He would also submit that the petitioner, who was at Serial No. 2 in the merit list, made several oral and written representations to the concerned authorities, including the Collector and the Project Officer, Pratappur, requesting her appointment to the said post. However, no action was taken (Annexure P/3). 3) Mr. Yadav, submits that since the appointment of the selected candidate has been cancelled, and the petitioner stood second in the merit list, she ought to have been appointed in her place. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the submission made by Mr. Yadav. He submits that though the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 2 in the merit list, no appointment order was ever issued in her favour. He further contends that a period of over seven years has lapsed since the original appointment, and it would now be -3- inappropriate to fill the post without inviting fresh applications. 5) Learned counsel further relies on the guidelines dated 02.04.2008 issued by the Department of Women and Child Development (Annexure R/1). As per Clause 10.1 of the said guidelines, no appointment can be made from the waiting list if the selected candidate has joined the post and thereafter resigns or is removed. In the present case, Amirun Nisha had joined the post pursuant to the appointment order dated 21.05.2009 and was removed subsequently. Thus, in view of the said clause, no appointment can be made from the waiting list. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 7) It is evident from the perusal of the documents that the appointment of Amirun Nisha was cancelled in the year 2018, on the basis of a complaint made by the petitioner. However, no appointment order was ever issued in favour of the petitioner. It is also noted that the original appointment was made in 2009, and more than 16 years have now passed since then. 8) Though the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 2 in the merit list, there is no provision under the applicable policy to make an appointment from the waiting list once the selected candidate has joined the post, as per Clause 10.1 of the guidelines. 9) In view of the above facts and circumstances, and considering the long lapse of time, it would not be appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to appoint -4- the petitioner against the said post. However, it is deemed proper to direct the respondent authorities to initiate a fresh recruitment process for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Mini Anganwadi Centre, Badwar Hasuwanadi, and to provide proper opportunity to all eligible local candidates, including the petitioner, as per law. 10) Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed, with the liberty to the petitioner to participate in the fresh recruitment process, as and when initiated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim