1 2026:CGHC:11287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2008 of 2026 1 - Smt. Laxmi Patel W/o Shri Fagun Dev Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Medhapali, Tahsil - Basna, Tahsil - Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through It Secretary, Woman And Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Basna, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Project Officer Ekikrit Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Basna, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Uma Malhotra W/o Shri Sant Kumar Malhotra R/o Vill. Medhapali, Tahsil - Basna, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Gayatri Patel W/o Shri Tonkodhar R/o Village Medhpali, Tahsil - Basna, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Smt. Neela Bai Barik W/o Shri Gurubaru R/o Village Medhapali, Tahsil - Basna, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Smt. Geeta Kumari Patel W/o Shri Chintaram R/o Village Medhapali, Tahsil - Basna, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Bhawna Netam, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 09/03 /2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 22.04.2025 (ANN P-1), passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Revenue Case No. 202310970200043/43/A-89/2023-24 Village Medhapali, "Smt. Laxmi Patel Vs Chief Executive Officer and others" and maintain the order dated 26.04.2023 (ANN P-3), passed by the Project Officer, Ekikrit Bal Vikas Pariyojana Basna, District Mahasamund in the ends of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner along with the Respondents No. 6 to 9 have submitted an application for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Sahayeka/Anganbadi Worker. After completion of the proceedings of appointment, petitioner was appointed. Aggrieved with which, Respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal before the Collector, District – Mahasamund. After hearing the parties, Respondent No. 3/Collector had allowed the appeal observing that the Respondent No. 5 while considering the documents enclosed along with the application filed by the applicants have considered the list of persons residing below poverty line of the year 2002 instead of 2011 and have awarded 06 marks to the appellant therein which was erroneous and have canceled the order of appointment of the petitioner and further issued direction for initiating proceedings against the Women and Child Development Officer involved 3 therein. The order of Respondent No. 3/Collector dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure P/3) was put to challenge by the petitioner before the Respondent No. 2/Commissioner which came to be dismissed by way of impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) affirming the order passed by the Respondent No. 3/Collector. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 2/Commissioner is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. It is pleaded that in advertisement dated 08.11.2021, there is no mention of the applicability of the certificate of below Poverty Line Certificate of the year 2011. The petitioner pursuant to the terns and conditions of the advertisement have submitted the Below Poverty Line Certificate of the year 2002 which cannot be said to be a not acceptable document. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State vehemently opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would support the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Petitioner has placed on record the copy of advertisement for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Sahayeka/Anganbadi Worker and the order issued on 08.11.2021 for the Anganbadi Centres as mentioned therein. Anganbadi Centre of Village Medhapali – 01 is mentioned at Serial No. 32 and the advertised post is Anganbadi Sahayeka. Clause - V of note appended to advertisement would show that it mentions the persons having the certificate of member of the family of Below Poverty Line of the year 2002 will be provided additional marks. While considering the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 6/appellant therein would show that Collector has recorded a finding that name of the five members 4 of the petitioner herein is also mentioned in ration card in which, head of the family’s name is mentioned as Mahendra Kumar, S/o. Tiharu who in the year 2002 was coming within the category of the family residing below poverty line. It is further observed that from 16.10.2019, his family is recorded as normal family and for him, the Ration Card is issued under the head of Above Poverty Line, Ration Card bearing No. 223855676342. It is also considered by the appellate authority as the advertisement is issued in the year 2021, therefore, status of the family of the appellants’ would be considered based on the result of the last survey made by the authorities and the list prepared therein, mentioning the name of the family members to be residing in below poverty line or not? 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not made any submission that the list of the family’s residing below poverty line whether prepared in the year 2011 or not which is the only important ground to be considered in the facts of the case. The object and purpose to award additional marks to the members of the family residing below poverty line is to provide them some work for earning to upgrade their living standard by giving some benefit to enhance their income. To achieve the object as observed above, the status of the family to be BPL family should always be on the basis of last proceedings/survey made by the competent authority before the issuance of the advertisement. 8. Petitioner before any forum including this Court has not made any submission that her family is identified to be a family living Below Poverty Line in the year 2011 or had submitted any document in this regard. It is also not the case of petitioner that no such proceeding took place in the year 2011. She has also not disputed the finding recorded by the Collector that head of family is recorded as family Above Poverty Line (APL) prior to the date of submission of the application. 5 9. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two authorities i.e. the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, hence, in the facts of the case and discussion made above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by Appellate Authority as also, the Revisional Authority. The petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed. 10. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY