1 2026:CGHC:8760-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 151 of 2026 Smt. Amrita Patle W/o Kapurchand Aged About 45 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Smt. Amrita Patale In Annexure A-1), At Present Working As Aagan Badi Karyakarta, At Anganwadi Centre Kevtara-1, Tahsil Masturi, P.S. Pachpedi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Resident Of Village Kevtara, Tahsil Masturi, P.S. Pachpedi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Komal Patle W/o Mukesh Patle Aged About 24 Years Posted As Aaganwadi Karyakarta, Anganwadi Centre Kevtara-1, R/o Village Kevtara, Tahsil Masturi, P.S. Pachpedi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Mahila Avam Bal Vikas Department New Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.1) 3. Pariyojana Adhakari Akikrat Bal Vikas Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.2) ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.3) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 . 02. 202 6 1. Heard Mr. B.L. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner and Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent No. 4 against the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4234 of 2019 (Smt. Komal Patle vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was disposed of. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant was initially appointed and has been working honestly and diligently as an Anganbadi 3 Sahayika since 20.07.2007 at Anganbadi Centre Kevtara-1, Tahsil Masturi, P.S. Pachpedi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), without any complaint throughout her tenure. It is contended that after completing more than 10 years of unblemished service, the appellant was entitled to be considered for promotion. However, in the year 2016, the respondent authorities issued an advertisement for fresh recruitment to the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta/Anganbadi Sahayika at the said Centre without granting promotion to the appellant. Pursuant thereto, both the appellant and respondent No.1/writ petitioner applied for the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta. Thereafter, respondent No.1/writ petitioner was selected and appointed to the said post by order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned Single Judge has further failed to appreciate that being aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2017, the appellant preferred WPS No. 4664 of 2017 before this Court. Vide order dated 11.09.2017, this Court granted liberty to the appellant to avail the statutory remedy before the appropriate appellate authority. Accordingly, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Collector, Bilaspur, which was dismissed by order dated 02.04.2018. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector by order dated 29.04.2019, holding that the appellant was entitled to promotion after completion of 10 years of service and that the order of the 4 Collector was contrary to the principles of natural justice. Pursuant thereto, the appellant was appointed and has since been discharging her duties as Anganbadi Karyakarta. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate as per circular dated 02.04.2008 issued by the Department of Women and Child Development, an Anganbadi Sahayika completing 10 years of service is entitled to promotion to the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta. By subsequent amendment circular dated 14.09.2023, the eligibility condition was relaxed to 5 years of service, and the promotional quota was enhanced from 25% to 50%. It is, therefore, contended that the appellant was fully entitled to promotion. He also contended that respondent No.1/writ petitioner had initially left blank the relevant column pertaining to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category in the application form and, therefore, was not awarded 6 marks in the first selection list. Subsequently, the writ petitioner submitted a BPL card along with a representation during the stage when objections were invited by the competent authority, and consequently 6 marks were awarded to her. It is alleged that the BPL certificate was not issued by the competent authority and that the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner was otherwise ineligible. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. He submits that the selection process in question was 5 one of direct recruitment pursuant to a duly issued advertisement and not a case of automatic promotion. It is contended that the appellant had participated in the said selection process without raising any objection at the initial stage and, having failed to secure higher merit, cannot subsequently challenge the selection of the writ petitioner. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner that although the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had inadvertently left blank the column relating to the BPL category in the initial application form, she submitted the requisite BPL card along with her representation dated 09.10.2017 at the stage when objections were invited by the competent authority. The competent authority, after due verification, found the document to be valid and accordingly awarded 6 marks to the writ petitioner before finalisation of the merit list. It is contended that the document was submitted within the permissible time and prior to issuance of the final selection list, and therefore there was no illegality in granting the benefit of 6 marks. He further submits that in the final selection list, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner secured 55.84 marks and stood at Serial No.1, whereas the appellant secured 53.08 marks and stood at Serial No.4. Thus, even on merits, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was rightly placed above the appellant. It is also contended that the Collector, while dismissing the appeal, had recorded a categorical finding that the BPL certificate had been duly furnished and verified prior to finalisation of the selection and that there was no procedural irregularity. The Additional Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in reappreciating the factual findings and 6 interfering with a well-reasoned order of the Collector. He further stated that the learned Single Judge, after detailed consideration of the entire record, has rightly concluded that the Additional Commissioner committed a legal error in setting aside the order of the Collector without any substantive basis and that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in the present writ appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the pleadings and documents on record. 9. It is not in dispute that initially the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had not filled the relevant column regarding the BPL category in her application form and, therefore, 6 marks were not awarded to her in the provisional selection list. However, during the stage of inviting objections, she submitted the requisite BPL card along with her representation dated 09.10.2017 before the competent authority. Upon verification of the said document, the competent authority awarded 6 marks to her and thereafter issued the final selection list, wherein the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner secured 55.84 marks and stood at Serial No.1, whereas the appellant (respondent No.4 before the learned Single Judge) secured 53.08 marks and stood at Serial No.4. 10. The Collector, while dismissing the appeal, recorded a categorical finding that the necessary document relating to the BPL category had been duly furnished by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner during the objection stage and was rightly taken into consideration before finalisation of the merit list. The Additional Commissioner, while 7 interfering with the well-reasoned order of the Collector, failed to appreciate that the document had been submitted before finalisation of the selection process and that no prejudice had been caused to any candidate. The interference was thus unwarranted and beyond the scope of revisional scrutiny. 11. The learned Single Judge, upon reappreciation of the record, rightly held that once the BPL certificate had been submitted during the permissible stage and considered by the competent authority before issuance of the final selection list, the Collector had committed no error in affirming the selection of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge correctly observed that the Additional Commissioner erred in setting aside the Collector’s order without properly appreciating the factual matrix and the procedural stage at which the document was furnished. 12. It is well settled that in matters of selection, interference is warranted only when there is illegality, arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions. In the present case, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner furnished the required document before finalisation of the merit list and was awarded marks strictly in accordance with the governing norms. No material irregularity or mala fide has been established. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restoring the order of the Collector. 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find no infirmity, illegality or 8 perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this intra-court appeal. The direction for reinstatement of respondent No.1/writ petitioner on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta, without back wages, is just and equitable, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant had worked on the said post pursuant to the order of the Commissioner. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra