1 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7043 of 2016 Smt. Anjani Sahu W/o Shri Ghanshyam Sahu, Aged About 38 Years Working As Anganwadi Assistant, Posted At Anganwadi Centre, Baniya Para, Rajpur, Block Dhamdha, Distirct Drug Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Women And Child Development, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhavan, P.O. Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisarh. 2- The Additional Commissioner, Revenue Durg Division, Durg Chhattisgarh. 3- The Additional Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4- Project officer, Intergrated Child Development Project, Dhamdha, Block Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5- Janpad Panchayat, Dhamdha, Through The Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6- Smt. Anusuiya Bai W/o Shri Tekram Sahu, R/o Ward No 12, Village Rajpur Block And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 132 of 2017 Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o Shri Narayan Sahu, Aged About 25 Years Working As Anganwadi Assistant, Posted At Anganwadi Centre, Baniya Para, Rajpur, Block Dhamdha, Distirct Drug Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Women And Child Development, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mahandi Bhavan, P.O. Rakhi, Naya Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Additional Commissioner, Revenue Durg, Division, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Additional Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Project officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Dhamdha, Block Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Janpad Panchayat, Dhamdha, Through The Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Mohini Dubey W/o Shri Rohit Prasad Dubey, R/o Village Rajpur, Block And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 731 of 2017 Smt. Chameli Sahu W/o Shri Premlal Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Rajpur, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2- The Addional Commissioner, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Collector, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Project officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Anjani Sahu, W/o Ghanshyam Sahu, R/o Ward No. 5, Village Rajpur, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Mohni Dubey, W/o Rohit Prasad Dubey, R/o Ward No. 1, Village Rajpur, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 8 - Smt. Anusuiya Bai, W/o Tekram Sahu, R/o Ward No. 12, Village Rajpur, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate (WPS/7043/2016 & 132/2017) Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate (WPS No. 731 of 2017) For Respective Respondent(s) : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22/09/2025 1. WPS No.7043 of 2016:- 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “i) That the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the Petitioner as well as respondent No. 6, in the ends of justice. ii) That the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or of any other appropriate nature setting aside/quashing the orders impugned dated 28.11.2016 (Ann. P/1) and 19.09.2012 (Ann. P-2), and also their consequences, in the ends of justice. iii) That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly grant any other relief or/and alternative relief to the petitioner which is deemed proper, just and fit in 4 the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.” 3. The facts, in a nutshell, are that an advertisement was issued by respondent No.4 on 17.09.2010 for filling up Anganbadi Workers and Anganbadi Assistants. There were three posts of Anganbadi Workers and three posts of Anganbadi Assistants for Satnami Para, Bichbasti, and Baniyapara, respectively. 4. The petitioner and other eligible candidates submitted their application forms for the post of Anganbadi Assistant Baniyapara. The petitioner applied for the post of Anganbadi Assistant at Center Baniyapara, Village Rajpur, Block Dhamdha, District Durg. Respondent No.6 also submitted her application form for the same center. However, since the name of the center was not specifically mentioned in her application form, her candidature was rejected, and an appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 26.05.2011. The respondent No.6 preferred an appeal before the Collector and same was partly allowed vide order dated 19.09.2012 and in revision, the Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Collector vide order dated 28.11.2016. 5. Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since respondent No.6 failed to mention the name of the center, her application form was rightly rejected by the selection committee. It is contended that the Collector committed error of law in allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No.6. 6. Mr. Bhatia, further submits that non-mentioning of the center goes to the root of the matter, and therefore the Collector ought to have dismissed the appeal. He contends that the petitioner is meritorious than respondent No.6. He argued that an interim order of status quo 5 was passed in favour of the petitioner. He prays that the petition may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.6 (Smt. Anusuiya Bai), submits that respondent No.6 was appointed to the post of Anganbadi Assistant pursuant to the order dated dated 19.09.2012 passed by the Collector in appeal. He submits that respondent No.6 is still working on the post of Anganbadi Assistant. It is contended that the respondent No.6 is meritorious to the petitioner, as she secured 37.31% marks whereas the petitioner secured only 34% and this fact is evident from the merit list prepared by the selection committee (Annexure R/1). He submits that non-mention of the center is not fatal since respondent No.6 is a resident of Baniyapara, Gram Panchayat Rajpur, and she had applied for the said center. Both the Collector and the Commissioner have recorded findings in this regard. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate, supports the submissions made by Mr. Patel. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 10.From a perusal of the application forms submitted by the petitioner and respondent No.6 (Smt. Anusuiya Bai), it is clear that the name of the center was not specifically mentioned in the application form of respondent No.6. However, it is apparent that respondent No.6 is a resident of Baniyapara, Gram Panchayat Rajpur. The Collector as well as the Commissioner considered this issue and recorded a categorical finding that respondent No.6, being a resident of Baniyapara, had applied for the post of Anganbadi Assistant center Baniyapara, and her candidature ought to have been considered by the selection committee. 6 11.Considering the fact that respondent No.6 has been working on the post of Anganbadi Assistant since 2012 pursuant to the order dated 19.09.2012 passed by the Collector and further considering the fact that though respondent No.6 failed to mention the name of the center in her application form, she is admittedly a resident of the concerned Mohalla, and she belongs to the Below Poverty Line, and is meritorious to the petitioner; thus, this Court finds that the Collector has not committed any error of law in allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No.6 and the Commissioner in affirming the same. Accordingly petition fails and hereby dismissed. 12.WPS No. 132 of 2017:- 13. Mr. Bhatia would submit that in this case, pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.09.2010 (Annexure P/3) issued for appointment of Anganbadi Worker and Anganbadi Assistant at three centers of Village Rajpur, namely, Satnami Para Centre, Beech Basti Centre and Baniyapara Centre, the petitioner and respondent No.6, along with other candidates, applied for appointment to the post of Anganbadi Assistant for Satnamipara Centre. After due process, the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.5 on the post of Anganbadi Assistant Satnamipara Center vide order dated 26.05.2011 (Annexure P/6). He would further submit that being aggrieved by the order dated 26.05.2011, the respondent No.6 preferred an appeal before the Collector, District Durg, under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993), on the ground that her application was not considered merely because she failed to mentioned the name of the center, though in the merit list her name was placed at Serial No.1. He would also submit that the Additional Collector, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties, passed order dated 19.09.2012 whereby appeal preferred by the respondent no. 6 (Smt. Mohini 7 Dubey) was allowed and respondent no. 5 was directed to initiate fresh selection proceedings including name of respondent no. 6, in accordance with the guidelines. 14. It is argued that petitioner then preferred a revision under Section 91 of the Act of 1993 before the Commissioner, Durg Division. The Commissioner, after hearing the parties, dismissed the revision vide order dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure P/1), affirming the order of the Additional Collector and it was held that respondent No.6 has secured 35.80 marks whereas the petitioner has secured only 30.12 marks. He submits that since respondent No.6 failed to mention the name of the center, therefore, her application was rightly rejected by the selection committee. It is contended that the Collector as well as the Commissioner have committed an error of law. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the eligibility condition in the advertisement was mentioned that the applicant should be a local resident of the concerned village and not necessarily of a particular center. It is argued that the Collector and the Commissioner have considered this issue in detail and have recorded findings to the effect that the candidature of respondent No.6 could not have been rejected only on account of non-mention of the center in the application form, particularly when she is meritorious candidate. 16.Heard. 17. In the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioner Smt. Sunita Sahu secured 30.12 marks whereas respondent No.6 secured 35.80 marks. Though the centre name was not mentioned in her application form, but the respondent No.6 is admittedly a resident of Satnami Para, Village Rajpur, and had applied for the post of Anganbadi Assistant for that center. Being more meritorious than the petitioner, the authorities 8 below rightly passed order in her favour. Admittedly, the eligibility condition in the advertisement was mentioned that the applicant should be a local resident of the concerned village and not necessarily of a particular center. 18. Considering the above discussed facts, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order(s) passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner. Both authorities have acted within their jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act of 1993 and have passed well-reasoned order(s) after considering all relevant aspects. 14.Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 19. WPS No. 731 of 2017:- 20. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dhamdha, District Durg, dated 29.12.2016, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Anganbadi Assistant, Centre Beechpara, Gram Panchayat Rajpur, Block Dhamdha, District Durg, pursuant to the order passed in the appeals preferred by Smt. Anusuiya Bai and Smt. Mohini Dubey. 21. Mr. Amit Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not arrayed as a respondent in the appeals preferred by Anusuiya Bai and Mohini Dubey, therefore, the order passed by the learned Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, is bad in law. It is further submitted that the petitioner is still working on the post of Anganbadi Assistant, and this fact is evident from the affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 dated 28.06.2024. 22. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Nayak & contend that the order passed by the learned Chief Executive Officer is appellable before the learned Collector in accordance with the provisions of the 9 Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 23. Heard. 24. Considering the fact that the impugned order dated 29.12.2016 is appellable before the learned Collector under the provisions of the Act of 1993, I am not inclined to keep this writ petition pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer a duly constituted appeal before the learned Collector within a period of 30 days from today. 25. The respondent-authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal, if so preferred, within a period of 90 days from the date of its presentation, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all interested parties. 26. The interim order granted earlier on 13.04.2017 shall remain in force for a further period of 120 days. 27. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition (WPS No.731/2017) stands disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim