-1- 2025:CGHC:6657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 47 of 2014 Smt. Resham Bai W/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 30 Years Caste Satnami Scheduled Castes, R/o Vill. Jampali, Tah. And P.O. And P.S. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa C.G., Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Beena Bai, W/o Dilharan Panika Aged About 30 Years Castes Panika Other Backward Class, R/o Village Jampali, Tah. And P.O. And P.S. Sakti, Civil And Revenue Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sakti Distt. Janjgir Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Project Officer, Pariyojna Adhikari, Integrated Child Development Project Akikrit Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Prasad, Advocate, holding the brief of Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.02.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire concerned record and to quash the order dated 18-11- 2013, passed by the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, -2- Panchayat and Rural Development department, Mantralaya, Raipur in Case No. 339/2011-12 with order dated 20/09/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur bearing case No.84/a-89/09-10 and order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sakti, District Jangir- Champa, Chhattigsarh, confirming the order dated 25.04.2007, passed by the ld. Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 10.2. Any other relief(s), which may deems fit, looking to the facts & circumstances of the case may be given to the petitioners.” 2) The facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued for the appointment of an ‘Anganwadi Worker’ at Anganwadi Center Jampali, under Gram Panchayat Jampali. The centre list of the panel was forwarded to Janpad Panchayat Sakti. After scrutinizing the candidature of candidates, an appointment order was issued in favour of respondent No.1—Smt. Beena Bai on 10.11.2006. The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.1 by filing an appeal before the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa, on the following grounds:- (i) The petitioner was a deserted woman and had passed Class 8th; (ii) She had been residing in Village Jampali for 2.5 years prior to the advertisement; (iii) Initially, she applied for the post of Anganwadi Sahayika, but later, she submitted an application for the post of Anganwadi Worker, which was accepted by the Project Officer (Women & Child Development Department); (iv) The appointment of respondent No.1- Smt. Beena Bai was contrary to the rules; (v) The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and is a deserted woman. Her father’s name was listed in the -3- Below Poverty Line (BPL) category, and (vi) her name was present on the voter list. 3) The petitioner claimed that her name was recommended for appointment solely on this ground. She further alleged that initially, a resolution was passed in her favor, but later, through manipulation; the name of respondent No.1-Smt. Beena Bai was included. Subsequently, the proposal sent by Gram Panchayat Jampali on 06.10.2006 was quashed, and the appointment of Beena Bai was canceled. Respondent No.1 then filed a revision before the Commissioner, which was allowed on 20.09.2011. The petitioner challenged this order before the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, Panchayat and Rural Development, Raipur. However, her case was dismissed on 18.11.2013. Therefore, the petitioner has now challenged both orders dated 18.11.2013 and 20.09.2011. 4) Mr. Gaurav Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.1. She was a deserted woman; she is a resident of Gram Panchayat Jampali; she had the required qualification (8th pass), and a resolution was passed in her favor. He further contended that respondent No.1 did not meet the required qualifications for appointment as an Anganwadi Worker. He argued that the Collector had rightly quashed the appointment of respondent No.1, and the Commissioner and the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government committed an error of law in dismissing her case; thus, he prayed that this petition may be allowed. 5) Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would -4- oppose the submissions made by Mr. Prasad and submit that the Commissioner and the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government recorded concurrent findings against the petitioner. He further argued that the petitioner had originally applied for the post of Anganwadi Sahayika and had not applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker. He contended that the appointment of respondent No.1 was made as per the existing rules. He stated that the name of respondent No.1 was listed in the BPL category, while the name of the petitioner was not in the BPL list, and the same is evident from the letter dated 23.01.2007. He also argued that the petitioner failed to submit valid proof of her deserted status, and therefore, the Commissioner and Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, rightly passed orders against the petitioner. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7) The Janpad Panchayat & Project Officer received 5-6 applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Gram Panchayat Jampali. Initially, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution in favor of respondent No.1, after which she was appointed. The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.1 before the Collector, and her appeal was allowed. However, respondent No.1 challenged the order passed by the Collector before the Additional Commissioner, who passed the order in her favor vide order dated 20.09.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged that order before the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, but her appeal was dismissed on 18.11.2013. The Commissioner and Secretary, -5- Chhattisgarh Government, recorded concurrent findings and made the following observations: i. The name of the petitioner was not present in the BPL list at the time of recruitment. ii. The petitioner failed to provide a valid desertion certificate. iii. She originally applied for the post of Anganwadi Sahayika. 8) Taking into considering the above discussed facts and the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner and Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, no case is made out for interference by this Court. 9) Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim