1 2025:CGHC:35801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1454 of 2021 1 - Suman Yadav Daughter Of Ramdas Aged About 24 Years Caste- Ahir, Resident Of Village- Sitarampur, Police Station - Balrampur, Tahsil - Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sarita Yadav Wife Of Mukesh Yadav Caste - Ahir, Resident Of Sitarampur, Tahsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Shiv Kumar Banjare, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Topilal Bareth, P.L. For Respondent No.6 : Shri Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.1.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, and the order passed by the Collector dated 31.7.2019 was affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an advertisement was issued on 10.4.2017 for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Centre Karampani, Gram Panchayat Sitarampur, Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganjon. He would contend that seven candidates participated in the recruitment process, and after due verification of the documents submitted by the candidates, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker vide order dated 25.1.2018. He would contend that respondent No.6 challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Collector, which was allowed vide order dated 31.7.2019. The said order was affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 4.1.2021. Against the order dated 4.1.2021, the present petition has been preferred. He would argue that respondent No.6 failed to submit the requisite domicile certificate along with her application form; therefore, her candidature was not considered. He would also contend that both the Collector and the Commissioner failed to appreciate this crucial fact. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that a domicile certificate issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat was filed along with the application form, 3 and this fact has been considered by the Collector and the Commissioner. They would further submit that, according to the recruitment policy for Anganwadi Workers dated 2.4.2008, a certificate signed by the Sarpanch and Secretary is acceptable as proof of residence. They would also submit that both authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 would further contend that she has been appointed as the Anganwadi Worker pursuant to the order passed by the Collector on 31.7.2019, and she has still been discharging her duties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. The petitioner has raised only one ground that respondent No.6 was not a resident of the Gram Panchayat Sitarampur and failed to submit the required residence certificate along with her application form, and therefore, her name was not considered for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. 6. However, perusal of the certificate issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Sitarampur would show that it was issued strictly in accordance with clause 1.5 of the circular dated 2.4.2008. The selection committee did not consider this certificate, and the petitioner was appointed. However, in the appeal, the Collector set aside the appointment order of the petitioner and allowed the appeal. The order passed by the Collector has been affirmed by the Commissioner. 4 7. Clause 1.5 of the circular dated 2.4.2008 reads as under:- “1.5 जिस ग्राम म आं गनबाड़ी के न्द्र खोला न प्रस्ताविता है या है पद रि"क्ता है, आंदिदके उस ग्राम के& ए नग"या क्षेत्र के लिलाए उस र्ड, के& स्थानया विनस हैन चाविहैया। आंदन पत्र के सथ विनस के स बा ध म विनम्नलिलाखिखोता म स केई एके दस्ता स लाग्न विकेया ग6- के. उस ग्राम/ नग"या क्षेत्र के& अद्यतान मतादता स9चा म नम द, है ता आंदन पत्र म उसके केम के के उल्लाखो के" प्रवितालिलाविप लागई । अथ खो. स बा धिधता ग्राम प चायाता के स"प चा ताथ सलिचा व्द" स या=क्ता. हैस्ताक्षेरि"ता अथ पट" ताथ नग"या विनकेया? म के& न ला विनया=क्तिक्ता म र्ड, पर्ष,द अथ पट" द्वा" " प्रमण पत्र जिसम र्ड, ए ग्राम म विनस"ता "हैन के पता सविहैता स्पष्ट उल्लाखो है। टFप6 यादिद विकेस आंदके के विनस के स बा ध म केई लिGकेयाता प्रप्ता हैता है ता उस आंदके के विनस के सत्यापन हैता= सक्षेम अधिधके" द्वा" " विनस स बा ध प्रमण पन्त्र है मन्या6 विकेया ग ।" 8. Taking into consideration the residence certificate issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Sitarampur, in favour of the petitioner filed as Annexure-R-6/4, the provision of clause 1.5 of the circular dated 2.4.2008 and the findings recorded by the Collector and Commissioner, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi