-1- 2025:CGHC:1972 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 908 of 2018 Smt. Lalita Sahu W/o Shri Brijlal Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chapiya, Post- Bhawarpur, Gram Panchayat Rupapali, Block And Tahsil- Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Commissioner, Raipur, Division, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Suroti Bai Chouhan, W/o Chhabilal Chouhan, R/o Village Chapiya, Post Bhawarpur, Gram Panchayat Rupapali, Block And Tahsil- Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. V. K. Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. S. P. Kale, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 13.01.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue notices to the respondents returnable within early date of hearing. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order vide (Annexure P/1) dated 14.12.2017, passed by the respondent no. 2, in the interest of justice. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganbadi Worker in place of the respondent no. 5 with all consequential benefits. 10.4. Any other relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case along with cost of the petition.” 2) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District-Mahasamund, applications were invited for the post of Anganwadi worker for Gram Panchayat, Chapiya. The petitioner, respondent No.5 and other eligible candidates submitted their application forms. The petitioner was selected and appointed vide order 05.11.2009. He would further submit that a complaint was made by respondent No.5 to the effect that she had secured more marks than the petitioner, and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 19.11.2009. He would also submit that prior to the cancellation of the appointment of the -3- petitioner; an appeal was preferred by respondent No.5 before the Court of Additional Collector, Mahasamud. The petitioner also preferred an appeal before the same authority against the cancellation of her appointment. Both appeals were heard and decided by a common order by the Additional Collector, Mahasamund vide order dated 03.08.2011. He would contend that the Collector dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 5. He would further contend that the petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur and the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2017. Mr. V.K Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that respondent No. 5 placed a forged mark sheet of class-8th before the recruitment authority. He would further argue that earlier a mark sheet was placed on record in which she had scored a lesser mark and later on, a forged mark sheet was placed wherein she had obtained more marks. He would also argue that a specific objection was raised by the petitioner before the Collector in this regard, but no inquiry was conducted. He would further submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the cancellation of her appointment. He would further contend that the Additional Commissioner, Division- Raipur has also not considered this issue while dismissing the revision; thus, he would pray to allow the present writ petition. 3) On the other hand, Mr. S. P Kale, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pandey and submit that -4- respondent No. 5 had scored 328 marks in class 8th whereas the petitioner had scored 267 marks. He would contend that respondent no. 5 was a member of the reserved category, therefore, 10 additional marks were awarded and thus, total marks were 338, therefore, she was appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker by the Additional Collector. He would also contend that the petitioner failed to submit the forged mark-sheet placed by respondent No.5 before the recruitment authority, therefore, no case is made out for interference and thus, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5) The petitioner, respondent No.5 and other eligible candidates submitted their application forms for the post of ‘Anganwadi Worker’ for Anganwadi center- Chapiya. A merit list was prepared, wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1. She was appointed vide order dated 05.11.2009 but on 19.11.2009 her appointment was cancelled by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna. 6) From a perusal of the order dated 19.11.2009, it is apparent that no reason was assigned and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. An appeal was preferred by respondent No. 5 against the appointment of the petitioner, and after 19.11.2009, the petitioner also preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector against the cancellation of her appointment. 7) The order passed by the Additional Collector would show that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the parties to prove their case. The -5- concerned authority considered the documents including the mark-sheet submitted by both parties. The mark-sheet of class 8 th of respondent No.5 would show that she scored 328 marks whereas, the petitioner had scored 267 marks and thus, respondent No.5 was meritorious; further, she was awarded 10 additional marks for being a member of the reserved category. The Additional Collector, Mahasamund afforded the opportunity of hearing and before that, the mark-sheet of respondent No. 5 was not placed to demonstrate that there was any manipulation or forgery. Since the appeal was preferred by the petitioner, therefore, the burden rested upon the petitioner to prove that a forged mark-sheet was submitted by respondent No. 5 before the authorities. The revisional authority also considered rival submissions, afforded the opportunity of hearing and scrutinized records and thereafter dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner. Further, respondent No. 5 has been working on the post of Anganwadi worker since 2011. 8) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9) No order as to cost. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim