2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 6214 of 2022 Pramila Singh W/o Dev Narayan Singh Aged About 42 Years Caste Gond (Schedule Tribe) R/o Village Nawaparakala, Tahsil Premnagar, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2-The Collector Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - The District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Prem Nagar, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Devmuniya D/o Shri Vashrup, Caste Gond (Schedule Tribe), R/o Village Nawaparakala, Tahsil Prem Nagar, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocates. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 / State : Shri Abhyuday Tripathi, P.L.. For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, G.A. For Respondent No. 5 : Shri Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 30/01/2026 1. Heard. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 07/09/2022 (Annexure P/1) passed in Revenue Case No. 201610260100002/5/ब-121/16-17 by the Collector (respondent No.2) by which the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 under Section 91 of the Panchayat Raaj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ‘Act of ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.04 17:32:51 +0530 -2- 1993’) read with Rule 3 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules 1995 (for short ‘Act of 1995’) was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Anganbadi Worker by the respondent No.4 vide its order dated 07/04/2016 (Annexure P/4) in Gram Panchayat – Navaparakala, Anganbadi Centre, Nawaparakala, Mahuapara. The said order of appointment was challenged by the respondent No.5 before the Collector under the Provision which is referred to here-in-above. Learned Collector vide its order dated 07/09/2022 allowed the appeal of the respondent No.5 and set aside the appointment order of the petitioner. It was further directed to respondent No.4 to make appointment of a suitable candidate on the said post. Some observation with regard to conducting a Departmental Inquiry was also made. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed. 4. A preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition was raised by the respondent No.4 & 5. It is submitted that the appointment on the post Anganbadi Worker / Assistant is carried out in light of the Executive Instructions dated 02/04/2008 issued by the Women and Child Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. According to clause XI of the said executive instructions, against an appointment in a Janpad Panchayat, the appeal can be preferred before the prescribed Officer as per Act of 1993. As per clause 11(ग) against the order of Collector Second Appeal can be preferred before the Commissioner / Director, Administration and Development. In the case in hand, the respondent No.5 rightly preferred an appeal under the provision contained in Act of 1993 and Rules of 1995. The Rule 5 of Rules of 1995 also prescribe that if the order is passed by the Collector a revision can be filed before the Commissioner. Thus, without resorting to the alternative remedy as prescribed under the Act of 1993 r/w rules of 1995 and executive instructions dated 02/04/2008, this writ petition Ashish -3- has been filed and is liable to be dismissed on account of availability of alternative remedy. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposing the submission submits that availability of the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining the writ petition, if the order is passed without considering the submissions made by the petitioner and is illegal. He further submits that this writ petition is filed in the year 2022 and this Court has granted interim Relief in favour of the petitioner and at the strength of that order the petitioner is still working on the post of Anganbadi Worker. Hence this petition may be decided on merits. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to quote the relevant provisions of executive instrruction issued by the respondent No.1 dated 02/04/2008 in clause 11 is as under :- “क. जनपद पचा यत ቛኋ रा चायन/निनयሹኌ किकय ज न परा चायन/निनयሹኌ आदश क ሹኌरू्ቍ ሹኌकित ्ቚकिकय क तत अपल छቈኍसगढ़ पचा यत रा ज अनि#निनयम 1993 क ्ቚ # न% क तत ሹኌकित अनि#क रा& क सम्ቌ क( ज सक ग। ग.जिजल कलक्टरा क आदश क ሹኌरु्ቍ किቛኋतय अपल आय/स# ्ቚश सन ए ሹኌक स क0 क( ज ग।” 8. This provision prescribes that the appeal and Second Appeal can be filed under the provisions of Act of 1993. 9. While exercising rule making power provided under sub-section 1 of Section 95 r/w. Section 1 of the Act of 1993, the Rules of 1995 have been framed. Rule 3 provides for an Appealte Authority, Rule 4 provides for Limitation of Ashish -4- Appeal and Rule 5 provides for Revision. For ready reference, the provisions are quoted here-in-below :- “3.Appeal and appellate authorities:- Save where it has been other-wise provided in the Act or rules or bye-laws made thereunder, an appeal shall lie.- (a) in the case of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under any provision of the Act or rules or byelaws made thereunder-to the Collector. b) in the case of an order passed by the Collector under any provision of the Act or rules or bye laws made thereunder-to the Director of Panchayat). (c) in the case of an order passed by the 2[XX] Director of Panchayats-to the State Government. (d) in the case of an order passed by the Panchayat specified in Column (1) of the Table below- to the authority specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereto. TABLE (1) (2) (a) Gram Panchayat Sub Divisional Officer. (b) Janpad Panchayat Collector (c) Zila Panchayat Director of Panchayat 5. Revision. (1) (a) The State Government, IXX), the Director Panchayat, the Collector may on its/his own motion or on the applicant by any party, at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself am the legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity the proceeding of, the authority subordinate to it/him call for and exami the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, such Ashish -5- author and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he may think fit: Provided that it/he shall not vary or reverse any order unless nota has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to the for being heard: Provided further that no application for revision shall be entertain against an order appealable under the Act. (b) An application for revision by any party shall only be entertained it is on the point of law and not on facts. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule (1).- (i) Where proceedings in respect of any case have been com menced by the State Government under sub-rule (1) no actis shall be taken by other Officer mentioned in the said sub-ru in respect thereof, and (ii) Where proceedings in respect of any such case have bes commenced by the Officer mentioned in sub-rule (1), the Sta Government may either refrain from taking any action und this rule in respect of such case until the final disposal of sus proceeding by such officer or may withdraw such proceedin and pass such order as it may deem fit.” 10.The executive instruction clearly indicates that a person working as Anganbadi Worker/Assistant, can have the remedy of appeal and second appeal under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Act of 1993. Cummulative reading Section of Act of 1993 with Rule 3 and 5 of Rules of 1995 make it abundantly clear that, if an order is passed by the Collector, the aggrevied Ashish -6- party has right to file a revision before the Commissioner. It appears that the petitioner has not availed the remedy available under rule 5 of Rules of 1995 and directly approach this Court against the order of Collector. Of-course there is no absolute bar in entertaing a writ petition despite aviliability of the alternative remedy. 11. Exception and parameter have been carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtas to under what circumstances the writ petition may be entertained in catina of decisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 7 Ors., (1998) 8 SCC in paragraph 14 and 15 is as under:- “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of 9 the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose. 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative a remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is Ashish -7- challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic b whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” 12.This Court on analysis of record available and submisssion made here-in- above and also looking to the provisions contained in the Rules 95 for procedure of appeal and revision, at this stage is not inclined to entertan this writ petition. However, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that by the virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is performing his duty continously now its present place of posting. Thus, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy as provided in the Execution Instruction dated 02/04/2008, Act of 1993 and Rules of 1995. If the revision is filed before the Commissioner within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the consent Commissioner shall not insist upon the period of Limitation and proceed to decide the revision on merits after hearing the stakeholder for a period of 60 days from today, the Interim order dated 29/09/2022 shall remain in operation. 13. With these observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish