1 2026:CGHC:12438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1587 of 2020 Mankunwar W/o Shivnarayan Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Pandri Tehsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Wadrafanagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Program Officer, Women And Child Development Department, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 – Sumitra, W/o. Basantlal, Aged About 37 Years, Caste Khairwar, Posted As Anganbadi Karyakarta At Aganbadi Kendra Pandri ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.03.16 17:04:51 +0530 2 Pashchimpara, R/o. Village Pandri, Tehsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondents No.1,2 & 4 : Dr. S.K.Dewangan, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Shashikesh Yadav, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 16.03.2026 1. Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has been superseded by the respondent No.5 by giving promotion to the post of Anganbadi Worker, whereas, both were appointed by order dated 22.07.2006 on the post of Anganbadi Helper. 2. Dr. S.K.Dewangan, learned State counsel, would submit that the petitioner joined her services on 03.08.2006; whereas the respondent No.5 joined her services on 25.07.2006 on the post of Anganbadi Helper, therefore, the respondent No.5 was senior and much experienced to the petitioner and, as such, she was promoted to one vacant post of Anganbadi Worker. 3 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents meticulously. 4. A careful perusal of the return filed by the State would show that though the petitioner and respondent No.5 both were appointed on the post of Anganbadi Helper on the same appointment order i.e. order dated 22.07.2006, but the petitioner has joined her services on 03.08.2006, whereas the respondent No.5 has joined her services on 25.07.2006. As such, the respondent No.5 is senior and has more working experience as compared to the petitioner, therefore, the competent authority has promoted the respondent No.5 on the one vacant post of Anganbadi Worker. Considering the same, I do not find any illegality on the process of promotion to the post of Anganbadi Worker, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge