1 2025:CGHC:61772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3913 of 2025 Order Reserved on 01.12.2025 Order delivered on 19 .12.2025 Fija Sheikh D/o Mohd Shahid Sheikh Aged About 28 Years Caste - Momin, R/o Ward No. 10, Dabripara, Baikunthpur, Distt - Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Leela Vishwakarma D/o Ashok Vishwakarma Aged About 28 Years Caste - Lohar, R/o Ward No. 10, Dabripara, Baikunthpur, Distt - Koriya Chhattisgarh (As Per Impugned Order) 2. Project Officer Integrated Child Development Services Project, Baikunthpur, Distt - Koriya Chhattisgarh (As Per Impugned Order) 3. Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Corporation Baikunthpur, Distt - Koriya Chhattisgarh (As Per Impugned Order) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Order 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by Commissioner SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.12.22 10:53:51 +0530 2 (Revenue), Sarguja Division wherein the revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by him. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi Worker for Dabripara, Baikunthpur Anganbadi Center on 04.09.2023 and pursuant to appointment order, the petitioner gave her joining. The respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Collector, Koriya under Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 which was decided by the Collector, Koriya on 26.09.2024 quashing the appointment order of the petitioner on the count that as per deserted certificate submitted by the petitioner, her marriage was solemnized on 21.03.2020 with Mohammad Saddam Husain Surajpur and the last date of submission of form was 10.09.2021 as such two years has not been completed still she has been granted 15 marks on account of being deserted lady. It has also recorded its finding that she has wrongly been granted 6 marks on account of being lady of below the poverty line. Thus the appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with the rules. Accordingly, it has set aside the appointment of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved with the order, the petition has preferred revision petition before Commissioner Sarguja Division under Section 91 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 mainly contending that the impugned order passed by the Collector is illegal and the Collector has not considered the material placed 3 on record and thus committed irregularity and illegality which deserves to be quashed by the Revisional Court. 4. The Revisional Court after admitting the petition has granted stay which continued till it has finally decided on 06.05.2025. The Commissioner vide impugned order dated 06.05.2025 has dismissed the revision as it has found no perversity or illegality warranting interference either in the proceedings or in the impugned order passed by the Collector. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order dated 06.058.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 is arbitrary, illegal as it has been passed without proper application of mind, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the petitioner has disclosed all her credential in transparent manner and nothing has been concealed by her while filing of the application. He would further submit that the petitioner has submitted desertion certificate by the Ward councilor and the same has been endorsed by Vice President of Municipal Corporation and once the status of the lady has been changed from married to widow/deserted/divorced it remains same forever, as there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the valuation committee has given marks on the head of deserted lady and would pray for quashing of the order dated 06.05.2025. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable as efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 3(e) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and revision) Rules 1995. She would further submit that the respondent No.1 had challenged the arbitrary appointment of the petitioner raising every ground in the appeal before the Collector, Koriya and the Collector after hearing the party found that the appointment order dated 04.09.2023 was wrongly issued in favour of the petitioner against which a revision has been filed by the petitioner which was against dismissed on merit. She would further submit that there is concurrent finding of both the authorities on merit and there is absolutely no merit of the case, as such the writ petition is not maintainable and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. From perusal of the record it is quite vivid that the petitioner cannot disputed the fact derived from the records by the Collector and the Commissioner while hearing appeal and revision. The petitioner in the writ petition could not dispute the fact that the petitioner’s marriage was solemnized on 21.03.2020 whereas the last date of submission of form was 10.09.2021, as such admittedly two years has not been complete to get 15 marks for falling within the category of deserted woman. As the clause 1.10(2) (d) provides for being classified as deserted woman two years or more is necessary whereas at the 5 time of submission of form two years has not been completed, thus the appellate Court as well as Revisional Court have not committed any illegality in not granting 15 marks to the petitioner for being deserted woman. 9. So far as grant of 6 marks for being fallen within the ambit of below poverty line candidate, the Collector has taken into consideration the fact that the Committee constituted by the Project Officer for granting marks has taken into consideration that poverty line survey list 2006-07 and accordingly it has granted 6 marks on the count that the list of economical survey 2011 was not corrected. The reason assigned by the Committee considering the poverty line survey list 2006-07 is not in accordance with the rules applicable. The petitioner could not place on record that the reason assigned by the Collector and affirmed by the Commissioner is illegal, suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Thus, the findings recorded by both the authorities are legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit dismissed. 10. The interim order granted by this Court on 27.05.2025 stands vacated. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh