2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 3421 of 2017 Kavita Sahu W/o Shri Raju Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Hathnipara, Bhatapara, P. S. And Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Child And Women Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Services Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Raghuvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Shri Ramkrishan Kashyap, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 17/10/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for the following relief :- "10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased set aside/quash the impugned dismissal order dated 28-04-2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.4. 10.2. That, this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to give appointment to the petitioner on ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.11 10:48:23 +0530 -2- the post of Aganbadi Worker at Aganbadi Centre Hathanipara, Ward No.2 and Center No.2, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a recruitment drive was initiated by the respondent No.2 and 3 for the post of Aganbadi worker for the advertisement dated 08/09/2025 by the respondent No.2 at Ward No.2 of Hathnipara Ward, Center No.2 of Municipal Council, Bhatapara. Petitioner applied for appointment on the said post and a merit list was prepared in which Roshni Verma was placed at Sl.No.1 and whereas the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.2. An objection was raised and it was submitted that due to unavailability of the mark-sheet of Class 10th the date of birth of Roshini Verma, was not certified. It is also submitted that the said Roshni Verma was also submitted a birth certificate but the objection was accepted and subsequently at the merit list the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1. The merit list was sent for approval to the President-in-Council of the respondent No.3, which in its meeting dated 03/02/2016 resolved to cancel the recruitment process for the post of Aganbadi worker for the advertisement dated 08/09/2025 by the respondent No.2 at Ward No.2 of Hathnipara Ward, Center No.2 of Municipal Council, Bhatapara, thereafter, the said decision was challenged by the petitioner before the respondent No.4. The case was registered as case No.02/1/89 year 2016-17. The case of the petitioner was dismissed by the respondent no.4 vide its order dated 28/04/2017. This is how this writ petition has been filed. He further submits that the cancellation of the entire selection process simply because the said Roshni Verma was removed from the First position in the merit list is bad in law as she could not submit duly certified date of birth certificate, the entire selection proceeding were canceled. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the -3- recruitment process started in lieu of advertisement Annexure - P/1 may be taken to its logical conclusion. 3. Per contra State counsel submits that the decision to cancel the recruitment process was taken by the Municipal Council and as such the petitioner cannot claim that the recruitment process should continue and taken to its logical conclusion. Return has been filed by the respondent no.3 in which it has taken a categorical stand that petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has a remedy to file appeal before Commissioner / Director, Urban Administration and Development as per clause 11(ग) of the guidelines issued by the state Government dated 02/04/2008. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him in para No. 9 and 10 of the petition in light of the return submitted by it. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that a recruitment process was initiated by the respondent No.2 for appointment on the post of Aganbadi Worker in various Aganbadi Centers. Initially a merit list was prepared in which one Roshni Verma was placed at Sl.No.1 and petitioner was placed at Sl.No.2. The objection was raised with regard to the date of birth of Roshni Verma and his name was removed from Sl.No.1 and petitioner was placed in Sl.No.1 and for approval the merit list was send to the President in Mayor in Council of Respondent no.3. It appears from the record that in the meeting held by the respondent No.3 they took a decision to cancel the recruitment process. The said was challenged unsuccessfully by the petitioner before the respondent No.4. 7. From perusal of the return of respondent No.3 and the circular dated 02/04/2008, it is quite evident that against the order of Collector, an alternative remedy available to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before -4- Commissioner / Director, Urban Administration and Development. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertained this petition and inclined to permit petitioner to file an appeal as per clause 11(ग) of circular dated 02/04/2008 (Annexure R-3/1). This Court on 28/07/2017 passed an interim order that if appointment order of Aganbadi Worker, Hathnipara Ward Center No.2, Bhatapara has been issued, the same shall not be issued till next date of hearing. The interim order continue from time to time and nothing on record to suggest that any appointment order was issued subsequently in Hathnipara Ward Center No.2. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition remain pending for a considerable period before this Court. Therefore even, if the petitioner files an appeal, the same may be dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation. The petitioner may be permitted to take shelter of Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 9. Be that as it may, the petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy as provided under clause 11(ग) of circular dated 02/04/2008 within period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The interim order dated 28/07/2017 to remain in force for a period of 120 days from today. 10.With these observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. 11. All the pending applications are also disposed of. Sd/- Sd/-d/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish