1 2025:CGHC:57360 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7661 of 2023 1 - Lakshmin Gond, D/o Dev Sharan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post- Rawa, Janpad Panchayat- Poudi Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Women And Child Development Department, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 3 - Project Officer Women And Child Development, Poudi Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mayavati D/o Bedram Aged About 20 Years R/o Village And Post- Rawa, Janpad Panchayat- Poudi Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For State :- Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR Date: 2025.11.27 10:57:04 +0530 2 25.11.2025 1. The petitioner is preferring the instant writ petition against the impugned order dated 15.06.2023, passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the claim of the petitioner is rejected, wherein she is debarred from appointment and posting to the post of Aanganbadi Worker, in post Rawa, Janpad Panchayat Poudi Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh and further appointement order of the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 06.06.2022. 2. By way of this petition, following reliefs have been prayed:- “10.1.That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly call for records pertaining to the case of petitioner in complaint case number 202301050400008/B-121/2022-2023. 10.2.That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly set aside and 06.06.20227 quash the order dated 15.06.2023. The Hon'ble Court may direct the respondent to appoint petitioner in place of private respondent, with monetary benefits. 10.3 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.” 3. Facts of the case are that the Project Officer invited applications for various posts including Aanganbadi Worker between 3 02.03.2022 to 16.03.2022 and 01.04.2022 to 15.04.2022, after which a merit list was prepared and objections were invited for a limited period from 25.05.2022 to 03.06.2022, during which no new documents were to be accepted. The Petitioner and the private respondent both applied with their respective documents, wherein the Petitioner submitted a valid BPL certificate of 2002, while the private respondent attempted to introduce a belated and allegedly concocted online BPL certificate during the objection period. Initially, the Petitioner secured first rank in the merit list; however, contrary to the objection conditions, the authorities improperly accepted the private respondent’s new BPL document dated 27.05.2022 and revised the marks, placing the private respondent at the top. Despite the Petitioner’s complaint dated 20.12.2022 challenging this arbitrary acceptance of fresh documents, the Project Officer, by letter dated 15.02.2023, validated the additional marks of the private respondent and facilitated her appointment. Ultimately, relying on this flawed evaluation process, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 15.06.2023, wrongfully upholding the private respondent’s appointment and debarring the Petitioner, giving rise to the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the documents were filed belatedly, whereas they ought to have been filed at the time of submission of the application. It is argued that the petitioner raised objections earlier, but the documents were 4 produced only thereafter. Consequently, it is submitted that the order passed by respondent No. 4 is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law and requires to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by respondent No. 4. It is contended that the documents in question do not indicate that they were prepared or filed belatedly. These were documents which could not have been filed at an earlier stage, and therefore, the order cannot be considered arbitrary or unlawful. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the documents relate to a period prior to the advertisement, and the same could not be filed at the time of submission of the application. However, when an objection was raised by the petitioner, the documents were filed, and after considering them, the respondent authorities passed the order appointing the petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarta. Therefore, the objection of the petitioner that the documents were subsequently taken into consideration is bereft of merit. On the earlier occasion, a bona fide mistake had occurred, and the petitioner’s submission that the documents filed later were not bona fide and should not have been considered, and that such benefit could not be granted to Respondent No. 4, is also without merit. 5 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha