1 2025:CGHC:58449 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4550 of 2020 Shushila Baghel D/o Shri Ram Das Baghel, aged About 50 years R/o Village Malkharoda, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Government of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Mahila and Bal Vikash Department Ministry, Atal Nagar, Capital Complex , Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station Rakhi, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Shakuntala Ajmale W/o Shri Ram Naresh Ajmale R/o Village Malkharoda, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 4. Pariyojana Adhikari, Ekikrit Bal Vikash Pariyojana, Malkhorada District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1& 4: Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. GA For Respondent No. 2 : Shri N.K. Malviya, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board dated 02.12.2025 Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 02.01.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, CG in Revision Case No. 43- A-89/2018 by which the revision preferred by respondent No.2 was allowed and the order passed by the Collector on 27.05.2019 partly allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was set aside. 2. Factual backdrop: recruitment process for appointment of Anganwadi Workers in various Anganwadi Centers of Malkharoda, District Janjgir 2 Champa was initiated by respondent No.4. Petitioner and respondent No.2 made application for consideration of their case for appointment on the said post in Anganwadi Centre – 2 Malkharoda. Select list was prepared according to which the petitioner had obtained 62.32 marks whereas respondent No.2 obtained 57.64 marks, but instead of petitioner, respondent No.2 was given appointment. It was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector alleging that by making interpolation in her application, appointment of respondent No. 2 as Anganwadi Worker was made. The Collector vide order dated 27.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda to place the applications of all the candidates who had applied for the post of Anganwadi Workers for Anganwadi Centre – 2 Malkharoda with all their testimonials before the Select Committee, and after the enquiry by the Select Committee was over, to give appointment to the candidate placed at S.No.1 as per the letter dated 02.04.2008 issued by the Mahila and Bal Vikas Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. An enquiry was conducted by respondent No.4 in which it is purportedly found that there was some interpolation in the application form of the petitioner. Subsequently, the finding recorded by the Collector was dislodged by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, and it is this order which is under assail in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the application of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) it is apparent that she had applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker of Anganwadi Centre- 2 but the select list (Annexure P- 5) wrongly mentions that she had applied for Anganwadi Centre – 1. He submits that learned Commissioner has committed a grave error in setting aside a well reasoned order passed by the Collector directing to give appointment to the candidate at S.No.1 in the select list, without ascertaining the fact that after the enquiry made by the select committee, it was found that 3 some interpolation was there in the application form of the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has committed similar fraudulent act with the other candidates as well and obtained the appointment in her favour. He thus submits that the order impugned being palpably illegal and arbitrary is liable to be set aside, and the petitioner who had secured higher marks than the respondent No.2 is entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre – 2. 4. Learned State counsel submits that on a complaint made by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 4 who gave a report indicating that there was some interpolation in the application form of the petitioner, and being so the impugned order may be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in fact the petitioner had made an application for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre –1, and accordingly the select list was prepared, and after consideration of the objections final list was prepared in which the petitioner finds place at S.No.2 with a remark that her application was rejected as it was made for Anganwadi Centre – 1 and she was found ineligible. He submits that prior to that one Punnibai Kurre who had though obtained maximum marks 67.24 marks yet her application was rejected and she was declared to be ineligible because she had applied for Anganwadi Centre - 1 He further submits that there are two applications on record pertaining to the petitioner, one was supplied to her under the RTI Act by the Project Officer (Respondent No.4) from which it is evident that the petitioner made an application for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre -1 Malkharoda. According to him, other documents appended to the petition also indicate that the petitioner had made an application for Anganwadi Centre – 1 4 Malkharoda. He submits that handwriting in those two applications is quite different. He submits that perhaps after the petitioner realized that she made application for wrong Anganwadi Centre, she with connivance of respondent No. 4 made another application. He submits that the disputed question whether the petitioner applied for Anganwadi Centre – 1 or 2 Malkharoda, is a question of fact and the same cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that learned Commissioner has made a detailed discussion of the submissions of the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record has held that the allegation of interpolation in the records of the petitioner has not been proved, and thus allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Collector. He submits that the respondent No.2 is working in Anganwadi Centre – 2 Malkharoda since the date of her appointment, therefore, the same may not be disturbed. 6. The crux of the matter to be determined is whether the petitioner made the application for appointment as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre - 1 or 2, Malkharoda? The petitioner has filed the application form submitted by her which shows that she applied for Anganwadi Centre – 2 Malkharoda. Respondent No.2 has also filed the application of the petitioner obtained by her under the RTI Act which shows that she made the application for Anganwadi Centre – 1, Malkharoda. From the record it appears that the select list was prepared and thereafter objections were invited and after considering the same the petitioner was found ineligible as she made the application for Anganwadi Centre -1, Malkharoda. It appears that some complaint was made by her indicating some interpolation which culminated in the report submitted by respondent No.4. Learned Collector relied upon the fact that there may be some interpolation in the records of the petitioner and 5 thus set aside the order of respondent No.2 and directed to reconsider the case following the instructions contained in letter dated 02.04.2008 issued by respondent No.1 and appoint the candidate placed at S.No.1 of the select list. Appointment order of respondent No.2 was issued on 05.10.1998 (Annexure P-3). After considering the objections, select list was prepared by the select committee on 04.10.2018 which also indicates that the petitioner’s application for Anganwadi Centre – 2 Malkharoda was rejected as she was ineligible on account of having applied for Anganwadi Centre – 1 Malkharoda. From the impugned order it appears that nothing happened from the petitioner’s side for two months after the appointment of respondent No. 2. The impugned order also indicates that for appointment of 11 Anganwadi Workers and 28 Anganwadi Assistants an advertisement was issued on 09.03.2018 and after considering the academic and other qualification of the candidates, respondent No.2 was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre – 2 Malkharoda. Learned Commissioner has found that the allegation of interpolation in the record is baseless. It is also observed in the said order that the petitioner has not filed any document with regard to her desertion. Learned Commissioner has also observed that an application was also supplied under the RTI Act but despite that the Collector has again passed the order of re-examination. 7. Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that there was an interpolation in the record of the petitioner and the enquiry report also supports the same. Record also shows that one application of the petitioner pertains to Anganwadi Centre -1 and the other to Anganwadi Centre – 2. Photograph is also affixed on the said application. After document verification select list was prepared in the month of October, 2018 which indicates that a four member committee found the application of the petitioner being made for 6 Angwadi Centre 1 whereas the advertisement was for Anganwadi Centre -2. Had it been a case that the petitioner made application for Anganwadi Centre – 2, there was no occasion for a four member committee who carried out the document verification, to say a thing that petitioner made the application for Anganwadi Centre – 1. No allegation has been made against any member of the Committee who made the recruitment process and prepared the select list. The complaint was made by the petitioner two months after the appointment of respondent No.2 in spite of being aware that she was declared ineligible for having applied for Anganwadi Centre – 1. Had it been a case that the petitioner made an application for Anganwadi Centre – 2 Malkharoda, there was no occasion for her to say after waiting for two months that her records were interpolated. The disputed question whether the petitioner had applied for Anganwadi Centre -1 or 2 Malkharoda and which out of these two is correct or whether the application form of the petitioner and that of respondent No.2 is correct or not, is a question of fact which cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of above discussion, the petition being without any substance is liable to be and hereby dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.12.04 16:24:04 +0530