1 2025:CGHC:1342-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 901 of 2024 Smt. Gangotri Rajwade W/o Shri Mukdeo Rajwade Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Majhapara, P.S. And Tahsil Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 6) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Samaj Seva, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner Surguja, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Surguja, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive OfÏcer Janpad Panchayat Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh 5. Project OfÏcer Integrated Child Development Project, Surajpur Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh 6. Smt. Saraswati Singh W/o Shri Lalit Kumar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Baigapara, Beltikri, P.S. Surajpur Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.09 18:22:22 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State and Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 6. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2623 of 2013 (Smt. Sarswati Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 6/writ petitioner herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the State Government had issued a guideline for recruitment of Anganbadi Worker in the State of Chhattisgarh and was addressed to the concern ofÏcers. In the guideline, the authority had mentioned in Clause 3 the procedure of calculation of marks for the post of Anganwadi Worker, percentage of marks has been allotted among the educational qualification of candidate, marital status, experience of work as Anganwadi worker, candidate whether living below poverty line, Domicile etc. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that pursuant to the above stated guideline, appellant/Gangotri Rajwade and respondent No.6/ Sarswati applied for the post of Anganbadi worker/Anganbadi 3 Assistant, 2011. He also submits that on the basis of recommendation, the respondent No. 4 issued select list on 04.06.2011. In the select list, the name of the appellant found place at Sl.No. 3 and she was appointed as Anganwadi Worker of Center- Beltikri- Harijanpara Janpad Panchayat Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.). 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appointment of appellant was challenged by the respondent No. 6 on the ground of educational qualification and domicile certificate before the respondent Collector under the provisions of Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, ‘Act of 1993’). Thereafter, through order dated 27.12.2011, the Collector held that the appointment of the appellant to be bad and cancelled the appointment of the appellant and directed the concerned authority to appoint respondent No. 6. He also submits that the said order was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner and by order dated 24.06.2013, the Commissioner reversed the order dated 27.12.2011 passed by the Collector appointing the respondent No. 6 in the said post. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant states that being aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2013, respondent No. 6 filed a writ petition bearing WPS No. 2623 of 2013 and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge through impugned order dated 05.12.2024 by setting aside the appointment of the appellant and directing the authorities to appoint respondent No. 6/Sarswati Singh on the post of Anganwadi Worker. He further states that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering that respondent No. 6 is resident of village Dedri and she has not falsely prepared the evidence to show her domicile of the village Beltikri. The 4 alleged domicile certificate of the respondent No. 6 has been issued in the name of her mother-in-law in the year 2012, but the appointment has taken place in the year 2011. Moreover, so far as the domicile issued in 2006 is concerned that has found on the basis that there is landed property owned by her father-in-law at Beltikri, but there is not any land even an inch at Beltikri in the name of her father-in-law. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned Single Judge has erred in not considering that respondent No. 6 is resident of village Dedri and secondly the BPL Ration Card which has been produced by the respondent No. 6 was sham document and she was not entitled to get the appointment as Anganwadi worker and the six additional numbers extended to the respondent No. 6 for BPL card is completely baseless because the document is fake and not genuine. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 05.12.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.6/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 6/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. Admittedly, Janpad Panchayat, Surajpur issued advertisement for recruitment on the post of Anganbadi Worker and on 26.05.2011, Janpad Panchayat, Surajpur made recommendation of candidates name for five 5 centers including Beltikri Harijanpara, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur on the basis of which by order dated 04.06.2011, appellant herein was appointed as Anganbadi Worker which the respondent No. 6 herein has challenged before the Collector, Surajpur under the provisions contained in Section 91 of the Act of 1993 stating that marks of the respondent No. 6 herein in higher secondary is more than the marks obtained by appellant and the respondent No. 6 is resident of Village Beltikri as per the domicile certificate produced by her which the Collector has considered and held that the respondent No. 6 is resident of Village Beltikri and her marks are higher than appellant and issued direction for appointment of the respondent No. 6 on the post of Anganbadi Worker which the Commissioner in revision preferred by appellant has set aside by holding that one domicile certificate has been issued and name of the respondent No. 6 is also recorded in the voter list of villages Dedri and Beltikri. 11. Admittedly, the respondent No. 6 has secured more higher marks than appellant in the 12th class examination. The only question remained for consideration before the Collector and the Commissioner was, whether the respondent No. 6 is resident of Village Beltikri, which the Collector has answered in afÏrmative and which was reversed by the Commissioner. However, in order to ascertain the true facts, the learned Single Judge requisitioned original record and after going through the original record it has also been stated by learned State counsel, that the respondent No. 6 herein along with application has filed domicile certificate issued in Revenue Case No.1714 B/121 05-06 in a regular revenue proceeding certifying that she is resident of village Beltikri and that domicile certificate has not been challenged or questioned till now and thus, in absence of 6 challenge to the same, it has attained finality, and therefore, the learned Commissioner could have called for the original record and could have verified the credentials with regard to domicile of the respondent No. 6 rather than looking into the documents which were filed during the hearing of appeal or revision. 12. While passing the impugned order, learned Single Judge held that since the respondent No. 6 has secured more marks than appellant and is also resident of Village Beltikri, the learned Commissioner is unjustified in setting aside her appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker at village Beltikri, Janpad Panchayat, Surajpur, District Surajpur. Consequently, appointment of appellant on the said post is set aside and respondent No.4 is directed to appoint the respondent No. 6 on the post of Anganbadi Worker. However, the respondent No. 6 will not be entitled for any back- wages as appellant is working on the said post. Learned Single Judge further held that the alternative submission made on behalf of appellant that appropriate direction be given for creation of a supernumerary post for adjusting appellant, deserves to be noticed. However, the learned Single Judge finds it difÏcult to issue such a direction in favour of appellant that too in the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6 herein whose petition has been allowed, as there is no petition pending on behalf of appellant. Even otherwise, creation of post is the exclusive domain of the competent authority / State Government and the learned Single Judge cannot direct for creation of post as it involves financial burden on the State exchequer. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7 13. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents No. 6/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan