1 2025:CGHC:9883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1456 of 2025 1 - Gayatri W/o Tuleshear Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Baiharsari, Gram Panchayat Silli, Tehsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.). 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli District Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - Selection Committee For Anganbadi Recruitment, Through Chairperson Women And Child Development Department, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 6 - Kanti Sonwani D/o Ishwar R/o Baiharasari, Gram Panchayat Silli, Tehsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.02.28 16:38:19 +0530 2 For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rishabh Bisen, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's claim and correct the selection process. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the appointment of Respondent No. 6 Kanti Sonwani (Annexure P/1), and directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner based on merit. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that self-attested documents are valid and cannot be the sole reason for disqualification. 10.4 That other relief may also be granted by the Hon'ble Court as may deem fit as per facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that she has filed application for the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta, however her claim has not been considered and the respondent No.6 has been appointed as Anganbadi Karyakarta. The respondent No.6 is not 3 eligible for appointment to the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta. The petitioner has made objection before the concerned respondent authority, however, it has not been considered and hence, this petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the argument advance by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that there is an alternative remedy available under the law and the petitioner has not availed the same. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner is granted liberty to approach before the authorities concerned by raising all these grounds which has been raised in this petition and in turn the the authorities concerned are directed to consider the same without going into the delay part which occur in filing the application by the petitioner. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi