1 2025:CGHC:38229-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 568 of 2025 Mamta Yadav D/o Ganga Prasad Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Danganiya, Tehsil - Thankhamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh And Presently Working On The Post Of Anganbadi Worker In Anganbadi Centre No. 6 Danganiya, Janpad Panchayat Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner Durg, Division, District- Durg (C.G.) 3. Additional Collector Bemetara District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4. Project Officer Integrated Child Development Scheme, Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Saja, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 6. Block Education Officer Saja, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 7. Block Medical Officer Community Health Centre Saja, District- Bemetara (C.G.) (Respondent No. 4 To 7 Are The Member Of Selection Committee) 8. Anita Patel W/o Sunil Patel R/o Village- Danganiya, Tehsil - Thankhamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.05 11:31:14 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04 .08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State and Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 8. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6483 of 2025 (Mamta Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 4 issued an advertisement dated 09.11.2022 for the recruitment of Anganbadi Karyakarta and Sahayika at various Centres under Janpad Panchayat, Saja. The appellant, respondent No. 8 (Anita Patel), and eight other candidates applied for the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta at Centre No. 6, Danganiya. A provisional merit list was published after scrutiny of documents, where the appellant ranked first with 51.72%, while respondent No. 8 was ranked fourth with 42.92%. The respondent No. 8 3 raised an objection claiming she was a deserted woman, and therefore, entitled to an additional 15 marks, which were not granted to her as she had not submitted the desertion certificate with her application, but only with the objection. But, the respondent No. 4 rejected her objection on this ground. The final merit list was published, and the appellant was appointed as Anganbadi Worker on 13.09.2024, and she joined on 18.09.2024. Subsequently, respondent No. 8 filed an appeal before respondent No. 3, claiming she should have received 15 extra marks for being a deserted woman. The respondent No. 3 allowed the appeal on 22.01.2025, granted the 15 marks to respondent No. 8, and directed respondent No. 4 to appoint her within a month. Thereafter, the appellant challenged this order before the Commissioner, Durg, who dismissed the revision on 05.06.2025, upholding the appeal order. This order was then challenged before the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6483 of 2025. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the document submitted by respondent No. 8 along with her application (in the writ petition) is not a desertion certificate, but merely an application made by respondent No. 8 before the Sarpanch/Sachiv, Village Danganiya, seeking issuance of a desertion certificate. This application was dated 25.03.2022. In response, the Sarpanch/Sachiv issued a proper certificate on the same date i.e. on 25.03.2022. However, due to an error on the part of respondent No. 8, she did not submit the actual certificate with her application for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Instead, she mistakenly attached only the copy of the application for issuance of the certificate. The certificate itself was submitted only later, during the stage of objections. 4 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 8 cannot be permitted to derive benefit from her own mistake. When a valid desertion certificate had already been issued, her initial submission of the mere application for issuance cannot be treated as equivalent to a valid certificate. Moreover, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in a hasty manner without requisitioning or examining the relevant records from the authorities below, thereby failing to conduct a proper judicial appraisal of the facts. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the matter did not receive a comprehensive and fair judicial consideration by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge erroneously equated the application for issuance of a desertion certificate with the actual certificate itself. In the present case, both documents exist independently, and the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in treating them as one and the same. The appellant had clearly raised these factual grounds in paragraphs 9.2 to 9.5 of the writ petition, but the learned Single Judge proceeded on an incorrect appreciation of facts and passed the impugned order based on a flawed and assumed factual scenario, which is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that although respondent No. 8, through her counsel, filed a reply to the interim application, she did not file the actual desertion certificate along with said reply. As per the advertisement dated 09.11.2022, specifically Note No. 4, all relevant documents were required to be submitted along with the application form. Submission of documents at a later stage such as during objections is not permissible under the stipulated procedure. Even 5 assuming the desertion certificate later submitted by respondent No. 8 is genuine, she failed to file it within the prescribed time, i.e., with her original application. Therefore, in light of Note No. 4 of the advertisement, respondent No. 8 is not entitled to claim the benefit of 15 additional marks awarded for desertion status. Consequently, the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 is untenable in law and is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 8 submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 10. The primary contention raised by the appellant is that respondent No. 8 did not submit her desertion certificate along with the original application form, and instead submitted it subsequently along with her objection, which, according to the appellant, ought not to have been considered. However, upon perusal of the acknowledgment document annexed at page 58 of the writ petition, issued at the time of submission of the application form, it is evident that the desertion certificate is mentioned at Sl. No. 11 in the list of submitted documents. Furthermore, at page 55 of the writ petition, the document claimed to be the desertion certificate has been annexed. Although this document appears to be an application addressed to the Sarpanch/Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Danganiya, it bears the official seal and signatures of both the Sarpanch and the 6 Secretary, thereby serving as a certified document. 11. While the certificate submitted by respondent No. 8 may not strictly conform to a prescribed format, the endorsement and certification by the competent authorities, the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat through their seal and signature within the same document, is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a desertion certificate in the present context. At the level of appointments such as Anganwadi Karyakarta, strict adherence to rigid formats cannot be expected, particularly when substantive compliance has been established. Moreover, the authenticity of the certificate was duly inquired into by a three-member committee constituted by the Additional Collector. The findings of this committee, as reflected in the orders of the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, confirm the genuineness of the desertion certificate submitted by respondent No. 8. Once the certificate was found to be authentic, respondent No. 8 became entitled to the award of 15 marks under the relevant column marks which were not initially awarded during the scrutiny of documents and preparation of the merit list. 12. While passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge noted that the Additional Collector had observed that respondent No. 8, upon submitting her application on 22.11.2022, was issued an acknowledgment explicitly indicating the submission of the desertion certificate. Therefore, respondent No. 4 ought to have awarded 15 marks to respondent No. 8 under the relevant criteria, but failed to do so. Upon perusal of the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, Durg, the learned Single Judge found no perversity, illegality, or arbitrariness warranting interference. Moreover, the issue 7 raised by the appellant essentially pertains to a disputed question of fact, which has been concurrently adjudicated by both the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, and absent any manifest error or arbitrariness, such concurrent findings are not liable to be interfered with. 13. Having considered the pleadings set forth in the writ appeal, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, procedural irregularity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the present writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan