1 2025:CGHC:1539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 207 of 2020 1 - Smt. Fulsundari Bhagat W/o Shri Omprakash Bhagat Aged About 39 Years Caste Uraon, R/o Village Jujgu, Post Kurdeg, Block And Tahsil Bagicha District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development And Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Woman And Child Development Officer Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Project Officer Unified Child Development Services, Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Shakuntala Paikra W/o Ishnu Say Paikra Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Jujgu, Post Kurdeg, Block And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate For Resp No. 6 : Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge) Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. This writ petition is filed questioning legality and sustainability of impugned order dated 10.12.2019 passed in Panchayat Appeal Case No. 231/B-121/2011-12 by the Commissioner, Surguja, Division – Ambikapur, C. G. whereby the Commissioner has allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 6 and set aside the order of Collector in an appeal filed by petitioner herein. 2 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No. 5 has published an advertisement for filling up of post of Anganbadi Worker to be appointed at different Centers within Jashpur District. Pursuant to advertisement, petitioner along with respondent No. 6 have submitted application for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker of Village Panchayat Jujgu, Anganbadi Centre – Patelpara. Upon receipt of the applications, office of respondent No. 5 has prepared a merit list, based upon which, order of appointment was issued on 08.09.2011 appointing respondent No. 6 as Anganbadi Worker of Anganbadi Center Patelpara, Village Panchayat Jujgu. Order of appointment of respondent No. 6 was challenged by petitioner through submitting a representation / appeal before the Collector, Jashpur pleading therein that in merit list, marks of Higher Secondary School Examination of respondent No. 6 is erroneously mentioned as 312 out of 500 whereas as per mark-sheet of respondent no. 6, she obtained only 227 out of 500. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that even after bringing to the notice of appointing authority the fact that in the merit list, wrong marks has been mentioned of respondent No. 6 as 312, however, no action was taken. Collector vide order dated 12.07.2012, after receipt of representation and also perusing record of recruitment proceedings of Anganbadi Worker, has allowed the representation, cancelled appointment of respondent no. 6 and further directed that second meritorious candidate be appointed which is petitioner. In the order, it is also observed that during course of hearing of representation / appeal, respondent No. 6 was granted opportunity to produce original mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Examination, in which she failed. Order of Collector was put to 3 challenge by respondent No. 6 in a revision before the Commissioner, Surguja, Division – Ambikarpur which allowed the revision by impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the Collector, after granting opportunity of hearing to both the sides, in particular, respondent No. 6 wherein she was asked to produce original mark- sheet, respondent No. 6 failed to produce the same even after granting several opportunity and therefore, order of appointment of respondent No. 6 was cancelled considering documents placed along with representation i.e. copy of mark-sheet of respondent No. 6 of Higher Secondary School Examination. He contended that Commissioner while hearing revision, has not taken note of specific finding recorded by Collector with respect to marks obtained in the Higher Secondary School Examination based on the copy of mark- sheet produced by petitioner as 227 out of 500 instead of 312 out of 500, but only recorded that in the merit list, marks of respondent No. 6 is shown to be more than that of petitioner and only on that basis, revision was allowed. Impugned order, on the said finding, is erroneous because petitioner has questioned preparation of merit list itself before the Collector and Collector, after going through the record and considering mark-sheet placed before it, recorded a finding and therefore, order of Commissioner is not sustainable. 4. Learned counsel for State supports impugned award. He submits that the Commissioner has passed the impugned order strictly in accordance with law considering record of recruitment proceedings, and in its order, categorically recorded that in the merit list, number mentioned of respondent No. 6 is more than that of petitioner. 4 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that Commissioner, after perusal of record of recruitment proceeding, recorded a finding that respondent No. 6 is more meritorious than petitioner and on that basis, allowed the revision which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused documents placed along with the writ petition as also the reply filed by respective respondents. 7. In the writ petition, petitioner has taken specific plea that respondent No. 6 has obtained 227 marks in Higher Secondary School Examination and has also placed copy of mark-sheet of respondent No. 6 to support pleadings made in writ petition. Copy of panchnama is also filed which also bears signature of petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 along with other persons present. In the panchnama it is recorded that on perusal of mark-sheet of petitioner as also respondent No. 6, marks of respondent No. 6 is mentioned in the mark-sheet as 227 out of 500. Copy of mark-sheet was compared with the original mark-sheet. 8. In the reply to the writ petition filed by respondent No. 6, respondent No. 6 has not controverted in specific terms copy of mark-sheet enclosed along with writ petition as also panchnama placed as Annexure P/4. Along with the reply, respondent No. 6 has also not enclosed copy of mark-sheet to support her case that marks mentioned in merit list as 312 out of 500 is correct one. From the Order of Collector, Annexure P/8 dated 12.07.2012, it is appearing that in the proceedings of appeal also, respondent No. 6 was granted opportunity to produce original mark-sheet wherein she failed to produce the same 5 and based on the documents available, i.e. copy of mark-sheet produced by petitioner, the Collector has passed the order, allowing the appeal and setting aside order of appointment of respondent No. 6. In a revision filed by respondent No. 6, the Commissioner has not considered copy of mark-sheet which was produced by petitioner before the Collector which mentions only 227 marks out of 500 whereas in the merit list, marks of respondent No. 6 is mentioned as 312 out of 500. The Commissioner has only taken note of the marks mentioned in merit list which itself was under challenge before the Collector by petitioner, in an appeal / representation. 9. Before this Court also, respondent No. 6 failed to produce original mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination to substantiate his claim that order passed by Commissioner is in accordance with law. 10. This Court has also asked learned counsel for respondent No. 6 to call for copy of mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School examination with 312 marks obtained by respondent No. 6, however, during course of hearing also, it was not produced. In absence of controverting the finding recorded by the Collector by producing original of mark-sheet with 312 marks even after granting opportunity to produced original mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Examination and further considering that before this Court also, respondent No. 6 failed to produced the mark-sheet, the finding recorded by Collector cannot be said to be erroneous based on Annexure P/7 which is copy of mark- sheet of respondent No. 6 of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination mentioning only 227 marks which was not controverted in specific terms. 6 11. For the foregoing discussion, in the opinion of this Court, the Commissioner erred in not considering the documents which was considered by the Collector and has set aside well reasoned order of Collector only considering merit list which itself is under challenge in the proceedings of appeal filed before the Collector. 12. In view of the above, order impugned passed by the Commissioner is not sustainable, accordingly, it is set aside. The order of Collector is affirmed. 13. Writ petition is allowed in above terms. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Shayna JUDGE Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI