1 2025:CGHC:10957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10038 of 2019 1 - Punita Dehre D/o Chotelal Dehre Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Laalmati, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sunita Baghel D/o Puniram Baghel Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.03.10 10:47:14 +0530 2 Sakin, Laalmati, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, PL For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Adv. (Hon’ble shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 05/03/2025 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the order (Annexure P-2) dated 14-12-2018 passed by the respondent No. 3/Collector, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) remanding the matter of appointment of petitioner to re-consider the same by the Selection Committee and the order (Annexure P-1) dated 6-11-2019 passed by the respondent No. 2/ Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur whereby the order Annexure P-2 dated 14-12- 2018 has been upheld. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, in pursuance of advertisement (Annexure P-3) issued on 31-7-2017 for appointment of ‘Rojgar Sahayak’ in the Gram Panchayat, Lalmati, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District. Janjgir-Champa, petitioner and private respondent No. 5 Sunita Bagel had filed their applications along with other candidates. After due scrutiny, the petitioner has been selected for the post of Rojgar Sahayak and appointment order dated 30-11-2017 was issued by respondent No. 4 / Chief 3 Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir- Champa, vide Ex. P-4, thereafter she is serving on aforesaid post. Subsequently, appointment of petitioner was challenged before the respondent No. 3/ Collector, Janjgir Champa by the respondent No. 5 by filing appeal, which was partly allowed by it and the matter was remitted back to the Selection Committee for re-consideration of appointment of petitioner. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the order Annexure P-1 before the respondent No. 2 /Addl. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur was also rejected vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 6-11-2019 affirming the order Annexure P-2. Hence ,this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is resident of village Lalmati, Tahsil Jaijaipur, to which, advertisement (Annexure P-3) for the post of Rojgar Sahayak was published. Private respondent No. 5 was also a resident of village Lalmati, as her parents reside there, but in the year 2011 after marriage, private respondent No. 5 Sunita Baghel had left her parental place Lalmati and is permanently residing at her matrimonial place village Malkharoda, District Janjgir – Champa. The petitioner is unmarried lady residing at village Lalmati since her birth, even at the time of publication of advertisement (Annexure P-3) also, she was residing there, but at the same time, respondent No. 5 was residing at her matrimonial place Malkharoda, despite that, she filed her application concealing her marital status as also about her child as 4 while filling her application form, she was having one child. Despite that, the respondent No. 3 without considering aforesaid facts, has held that private respondent No. 5 is also resident of Lalmati and remitted the matter to the Selection Committee only observing therein that, no appropriate reason has been shown for depriving the respondent No. 5 for selection on aforesaid post, whereas it is very clear that, the case of petitioner is on much better footing then the respondent No. 5 for appointment on the post of Rojgar Sahayak. Hence, it is submitted that, the petition may be allowed and the relief sought for may be granted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, who is main contesting party, has filed her reply with the pleading that, she is deserted lady and after desertion by her husband, she is residing at village Lalmati in her parental house since 2011 along with her child, as such, she is permanent resident of village Lalmati. He further submitted that, the order (Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent No. 3 and order Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No. 2 are well reasoned orders and hence, they do not require any interference. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 also support the contention made by learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 6. As per contention and documents purforth by the petitioner and private respondent No. 5, both of them are resident of village Lalmati. Petitioner is said to be unmarried and residing there since 5 her birth, whereas respondent No. 5 was married in the year 2011 and her marital place is said to be village Malkharoda. 7. Perusal of application form filled by the private respondent No. 5 Sunita Baghel (at page No. 37 and 38 of the petition) would show that, that form was filled by her in the year 2017 for said recruitment, but she concealed her marital status, rather she has stated herself as ‘unmarried’. She has also mentioned in the form that, she has no child, whereas, counsel for respondent No. 5 himself admits that, at that time, she was having one child. Thus, it is clear that, when said recruitment was made, at that time, respondent No. 5 was married and she was having one child also. Her marital place is said to be Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, whereas it was not controverted by respondent No. 5 that the petitioner was resident of village Lalmati by birth, she is unmarried also and residing there while filling the form for appointment on the said post. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has contended that, though respondent No. 5 was married in the year 2010, but she was deserted by her husband in the year 2011 itself, thereafter she is residing at her parental house at village Lalmati. In this regard, he draws attention of the Court in Annexure R-5/3, which is Panchnama executed by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Lalmati, wherein it has been certified that divorce has been effected between respondent No. 5 and her husband Vinod Kumar, whereas 6 in reply, respondent No. 5 has contended that, she is a deserted lady. She has not been said to be a ‘divorcee’ in the reply. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts situation of the case, petitioner was at more better footing than respondent No. 5 for her appointment on the post of Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat, Lalmati in terms of Clause 3 of advertisement (Annexure P-3), which stipulates that, the candidate must be resident of same Gram panchayat, to which appointment was to be made. 10. Having considered aforesaid facts, I feel inclined to allow instant petition. Consequently, instant petition is allowed. The Order (Annexure P-2) dated 14-12-2018 passed by the respondent No. 3/Collector, Janjgir-Champa and the order (Annexure P-1) dated 6-11-2019 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur are quashed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) JUDGE Pathak