1 (WPS No. 2569 of 2015) 2025:CGHC:5351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2569 of 2015 1 - Smt. Ashwani @ Ashwarya Gendale W/o Shri Purushottam Gendale Aged About 27 Years R/o Gram- Khamhariya, Post- Farhada, P.S. Jarhagaon, Tehsil And District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Division - Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Mungeli District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh 4 - Additional Collector Mungeli District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - District Program Officer, Women And Child Development Department, Division- Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, 6 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh 7 - Project Officer Integrated Child Development Scheme Mungeli, District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Madhuri Miri W/o Shri Om Prakash Miri Aged About 31 Years R/o Aawaspara Khamhariya, Block- Mungeli, Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For State/Respondent Nos.1 to 5 & 7 :- Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 :- None. For Respondent No.8 :- Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.02.03 12:18:34 +0530 2 (WPS No. 2569 of 2015) SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 29.01.2025 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner herein is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of order dated 29.11.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 06.09.2014 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Additional Collector, Mungeli, by which the order of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Sahayika, Gram- Khamhariya, District – Mungeli has been set aside, and direction has been issued for appointment of respondent No.8 to the said post, has been affirmed. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual background :- 2.1 In the year 2010, advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Sahayika, Mungeli. Pursuant to which, the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 made applications for appointment to the said post. Afterwards, the merit list was issued and the petitioner secured 36.48 marks whereas, respondent No.8 secured 38.76 marks (along with six additional marks for holding BPL ration card) and, consequently, respondent No.8 was appointed to the said post. 3 (WPS No. 2569 of 2015) 2.2 On complaint made by the petitioner before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, the services of respondent No.8 were terminated on 29.11.2011 (Annexure P/10) and on 16.04.2012 (Annexure P/11) the petitioner was appointed to the said post in place of respondent No.8. Subsequently, respondent No.8 filed an appeal against her order of termination before the Additional Collector, Mungeli, which was allowed vide order dated 06.09.2014 (Annexure P/2) and, consequently, the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Anganwadi Sahayika was canceled and respondent No.8 was appointed to the said post on 27.09.2014 (Annexure P/3). 2.3 Thereafter, the petitioner challenged order dated 06.09.2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Mungeli, by filing the revision before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, but the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.11.2014 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 06.09.2014 (Annexure P/2) of the Additional Collector, Mungeli was affirmed, against which this writ petition has been preferred. 3. Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that both the authorities have completely erred in setting aside the appointment order of 4 (WPS No. 2569 of 2015) the petitioner and held that respondent No.8 has wrongly been given six additional marks for being a member of BPL family, while she was not entitled for the same. As such, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.8 would submit that both the authorities have rightly and correctly held that respondent No.8 is a member of BPL family and, therefore, six additional marks have rightly been given to respondent No.8. As such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned State Counsel would support the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. The dispute is with regard to six additional marks awarded to respondent No.8 for being a member of BPL family, which was firstly not accepted by the District Program Officer, who terminated the services of respondent No.8, however, the Additional Collector, Mungeli after due enquiry held that respondent No.8 herein has obtained 38.76 marks, whereas, the petitioner has obtained 36.48 marks and even if the marks allotted to both the 5 (WPS No. 2569 of 2015) candidates for being the members of BPL families are not accepted, then also respondent No.8 herein is more meritorious and thereby, proceeded to confirm the appointment of respondent No.8 to the post of Anganwadi Sahayika, which has also been affirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division. As such, the findings recorded by the Additional Collector, Mungeli and affirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division that respondent No.8 is more meritorious and she being a member of BPL family is entitled for six additional marks is a correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record and hence, no interference is called for. Furthermore, the correctness of the BPL ration card held by respondent No.8 could have been assailed only in a separate proceeding initiated on that behalf, which has not been done. 8. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!