1 2025:CGHC:54694 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6912 of 2023 1 - Smt. Kasturi Shukla W/o- Tarun Shukla Aged About 48 Years Working As Anganbadi Karyakarta At Village Arjuni, Tahsil- Baloda Bazaar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Nirmala Verma W/o- Suresh Kumar Verma Aged About 52 Years Working As Anganbadi Karyakarta At Village Karmada, Tahsil- Baloda Bazaar, District Balodabazaar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Nimeshwari Verma W/o- Jitendra Verma Aged About 46 Years Working As Anganbadi Karyakarta At Village Sakari, Tahsil- Baloda Bazaar, District Balodabazaar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Pavitri Devi Rajak W/o- Ramnath Rajak Aged About 48 Years Working As Anganbadi Karyakarta At Village Sudhela, Tahsil- Lawan, District Balodabazaar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Usha Devi Dhruv D/o- Aghnuram Dhruv Aged About 48 Years Working As Anganbadi Karyakarta At Village Khairatal, Tahsil- Baloda Bazaar, District Balodabazaar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Department Of Women And Children Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector District Balodabazaar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Baloda-Bazaar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - District Programe Officer District Balodabazaar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Project Officer Integrated Woman And Child Welfare, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Project Officer Integrated Woman And Child Welfare- Lawan, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/11/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated order dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) 10.3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue direction to the respondent authority to give the promotion to the petitioners on the post of Supervisor. 10.4) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and 3 circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioners have been working as Anganbadi Karyakartas at villages Arjuni, Karmada, Sakari, Sudhela, and Khairtal, District Baloda-Bazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.) respectively, since 16.12.1997 and 23.12.1998, i.e., from the initial date of their appointment by respondent No. 3. The post of Supervisor being vacant, the petitioners duly filled up the form for the said post and submitted an application before the competent authority seeking promotion from the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta to that of Supervisor. However, the said application was not decided. Therefore, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition (S) No. 4901/2023 before this Hon’ble Court, wherein the Court, vide order dated 21.07.2023, directed the respondent authorities to decide the representation/application filed by the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a copy of the said order before the respondent authorities along with their application on 04.08.2023. However, the respondent authorities, vide order dated 23.08.2023, rejected the representation/application filed by the petitioners for promotion from the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta to Supervisor on the ground that there is no provision for direct promotion from the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta to Supervisor and that the State Government has amended the recruitment rules accordingly. Hence, this petition. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been serving as Anganbadi Karyakartas with utmost sincerity and dedication for more than two decades, and therefore, they are legitimately entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Anganbadi Supervisor. It is contended that throughout their long tenure, there has never been any complaint or adverse remark regarding their work performance, efficiency, or conduct. The petitioners possess the requisite educational qualifications and fulfill all terms, conditions, and eligibility criteria prescribed by the respondent authorities for promotion to the higher post. It is further submitted that several posts of Anganbadi Supervisor are lying vacant, and the petitioners, being fully qualified and eligible, have a rightful claim to be promoted in accordance with the prevailing policy and provisions of the State Government, which clearly provide for promotion from the post of Anganbadi Sahayaka to Anganbadi Karyakarta and from Anganbadi Karyakarta to Anganbadi Supervisor. The petitioners have duly submitted all necessary documents and representations before the competent authorities in compliance with the prescribed procedure. However, despite fulfilling all eligibility requirements and there being no adverse material against them, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily and without assigning any cogent or legally sustainable reason or referring to any specific government instruction or circular, rejected their applications for promotion, thereby causing grave injustice to the petitioners. 5 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and contends that, as per the rules governing the field, the petitioners are mandatorily required to appear in the limited competitive examination for promotion to the next higher post of Supervisor. It is further submitted that the petitioners had, in fact, appeared in the said examination conducted in the years 2013, 2021, and 2023, but were unsuccessful in securing the requisite marks for selection. Learned counsel for the State emphasizes that the provisions contained in Schedule-III of the relevant rules specifically prescribe that promotion to the post of Supervisor shall be made only through the process of limited competitive examination, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim promotion as a matter of right without fulfilling this statutory requirement. 5. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. It is an admitted position that as per the prevailing recruitment rules, the post of Anganbadi Supervisor is to be filled through a limited competitive examination, and the petitioners, despite having participated in such examinations in the years 2013, 2021, and 2023, failed to qualify. The petitioners cannot claim promotion as a matter of right in contravention of the specific provisions contained in Schedule- III of the applicable rules. The contention that they have rendered long and satisfactory service does not create any legal right for direct promotion, particularly when the statutory scheme 6 prescribes a distinct mode of selection. The rejection of their representation by the respondent authorities is thus found to be in consonance with the rules governing the field and does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merits. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat