1 / 8 2025:CGHC:50245 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11720 of 2025 Smt. Leena Sahu W/o Shri Siyaram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Family Welfare, Nawa Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner, Division Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Collector, District Balod (C.G.) 4 - The Additional Collector, Balod District Balod (C.G.) 5 - The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Gurur, Balod District Balod (C.G.) 6 - The Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Gurur, Balod District Balod (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Pratima Kalihari, W/o Shri Dronacharyya Kalihari, Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, Balod District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.10.27 16:18:40 +0530 2 / 8 For Petitioner : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 08/10/2025 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, whereby revision filed by the petitioner against order dated 29.04.2024 passed by Additional Collector, Balod, District Balod has been dismissed. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition is that respondent authority has issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta/Aanganbadi Sayayika for Aanganbadi Centre No.1, Pandit Deen Dayal Ward No.12, Nagar Panchayat Gurur, District Balod on 11.07.2022. Pursuant to advertisement issued, petitioner and respondent No.7 have also submitted their application Forms. After completion of selection process, petitioner was found eligible to be appointed on the post of Aangangadi Sahayika and her appointment order was issued on 02.08.2023 (Annexure P-3). Being aggrieved by the order of appointment issued in favour of petitioner, respondent No.7 filed an appeal before respondent No.4/Additional Collector Balod which was allowed and order of appointment dated 02.08.2023 issued in favour of petitioner was cancelled. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Additional Collector, Balod, petitioner preferred revision before Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, which also came to be dismissed which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3 / 8 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that candidature of respondent No.7 for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi Sahayika has rightly been rejected on the ground that she did not file documents showing her residence at the place where Aanganbadi Centre is situated. He referred to Annexure P-7 which is a final chart of assessment of candidature of candidates applied for the post of Aaganbadi Sahayika and not found eligible. In the remark column against name of respondent No.7 it is mentioned that “No document is submitted showing residence of candidate at Ward No.12”. Respondent No.7 had submitted her objection before the concerned authority on 15.11.2022 against rejection of her candidature to be appointed on the said post. Objection submitted by respondent No.7 was duly considered and decided and it is only thereafter that order of appointment was issued in favour of petitioner on 02.08.2023. However, respondent No.4/Addl. Collector, Balod while entertaining appeal filed by respondent No.7, without appreciating the matter in its true perspective, allowed the appeal and cancelled order of appointment of the petitioner erroneously which has been upheld by the Commissioner, Durg Division by the impugned order. Submission of residential proof along with application was necessary. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 6. Annexure P-4 is the copy of advertisement issued by the respondent 4 / 8 authority for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika. Under sub-clause (d) of column -9 of requisite qualification, it is specifically mentioned that in urban areas, candidate should be resident of same ward where, Aanganbadi Centre is situated. Sub-clause ([k) thereof further stipulates that in urban areas certificate issued by the Ward Councillor or Patwari in which there is clear mention of being resident of Ward and Village with address is mentioned will be accepted . 7. Petitioner as well as respondent No.7 both have submitted their application Forms for the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika. In selection process, a Committee was constituted according to relevant applicable service rules. After examining candidatures of all the candidates applied for the said post, a provisional assessment chart was issued in moth of September 2022, upon which respondent No.7 submitted objection on 15.11.2022 before respondent No.5/Project Officer. On 17.01.2023 respondent No.5/Project Officer rejected her objection. Thereafter, final list was issued in the month of January 2023 based upon which respondent No.5/Project Officer has issued appointment order dated 02.08.2023 appointing the petitioner on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika. In final evaluation list, petitioner is shown to have been secured 31.80 marks. Respondent No.7 is shown to have been secured 38.20 marks but in remark column it is mentioned that no document is enclosed of Ward No.12. 8. Appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner was challenged in an appeal by respondent No. 7 before Additional Collector, Balod. 5 / 8 While considering the appeal filed by respondent No.7, Additional Collector, Balod based on the documents available before it, has recorded finding that in provisional list prepared by the Project Officer, in front of name of petitioner in remark column there is no mention of her to eligible or ineligible and in final list published also there is no such mention whereas in remark column in front of other candidates it is specifically mentioned. It also recorded that respondent No.7/appellant therein has submitted objection on provisional select list prepared by the Committee in which remark column against respondent No.7/appellant therein it was mentioned that she has not submitted any document with regard to Ward No.12 (ineligible) . In the objection, appellant stated that she along with her application submitted proof of residence and all educational qualifications. However, her objection was rejected on the ground that certificate enclosed is not proper. It is also recorded that appellant therein/respondent No.7 along with application has submitted permanent residential certificate, Aadhar card, Ration Card and the Collector/Appellate Authority also took note of fact that there is some interpolation in the application of appellant therein/respondent No.7. It also recorded that appellant has also mentioned that she also enclosed Voter ID Card and further recorded that from perusal of the application and documents enclosed, it is apparent that there appears to be some interpolation or mischief played with the application of appellant. It was observed that Project Officer when called objection from candidates based on shortcomings found in the application submitted by respective candidates, then it is for the Project Officer to consider the facts pleaded in the objection and also to consider the documents 6 / 8 enclosed along with objection. It is also to recorded that Project Officer has sent information to appellant therein/respondent No.7 of shortcoming found in application at the address of Ward No.12 of appellant/respondent No.7 as mentioned in application. 9. Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Women and Child Development Department has issued Instruction No.728/1098/2008/ e-ck-fo-/50, Raipur dated 02.04.2008 . According to point No. 1.5 of the above instructions, there is note that if any complaint is received with regard to residence of any candidate, certificate issued by the Competent Authority in this regard only will be acceptable. It also recorded that residential certificate issued by competent authority is enclosed along with application. It also recorded that appellant therein has enclosed all the relevant documents along with application to show her residence of Ward No.12. Appellant therein secured 38.20 marks whereas non-applicant No.1 therein/petitioner secured 31.80 marks and accordingly set aside the order of appointment of petitioner/non-applicant No.1 therein with a direction to issue fresh appointment order in accordance with directives issued by the State Govt. 10. Order of Collector was put to challenge before the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg. Commissioner in its order Annexure P-1 also recorded that he perused the documents enclosed along with original application for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi Sahayika and found that there was tick mark in column of residential certificate. Aadhar Card, Ration Card and other certificates are appearing to be erased. Along with application, copy of ration card and residential certificate issued by the Competent Authority is enclosed but the copy of Aadhar Card and 7 / 8 other documents are not found attached along with application. Revisional Authority also considered the address mentioned in Aadhar Card as House No.10, Ward No.12 Pandit Deendayal Ward, Gurur, Balod and same address in the Voter ID card of appellant/respondent No.7 herein. It is also recorded that appointment of petitioner is against directive issued by State Govt. for appointment of Aanganbadi Karykarta/Sahayika and dismissed the revision. 11. Perusal of the ground as pleaded in writ petition would show that there is no specific pleading made in the petition or the ground raised assigning any reason or ground stating that, for such reason, order of Collector (Appellate Authority) and order of Commissioner (Revisional Authority) is bad in law. Order impugned passed by the Commissioner and order of the Collector would show that they have perused the record of appointment of Aaganbadi Sahayika which enclosed applications submitted by candidates for appointment on the said post. The two authorities i.e. Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, upon appreciation of documents available on record have arrived at a concurrent finding and passed the orders which does not call for any interference. 12. Respondent No.7 is a meritorious candidate who secured higher marks in qualifying qualification and, therefore, she should not be deprived of her preferential right to be considered for her appointment by adopting unfair means. Both the authorities, Appellate and Revisional, have found that there was some interpolation in application Form of respondent No.7 . 8 / 8 13. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to admit this petition. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen