1 2026:CGHC:21924-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 420 of 2026 1 - Suraj Bai Rathiya W/o Shri Bhupendra Singh Rathiya Aged About 28 Years (Caste Kanwar) -R/o -Chainpur Tehsil Kartala Korba -District - Korba C.G. .. Appellant(s) versus 1 - Durga Bai Rathiya W/o Shri Devendra Prakash Rathiya Aged About 30 Years R/o Chainpur Tehsil Kartala Korba District Korba C.G. 2 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kartala District Korba C.G. 3 - Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project -Kartala District- Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/05/2026 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.13 15:23:05 +0530 2 appearing for the Respondent No.1, Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and 3/State on I.A.No.01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the present appeal. 2. On due consideration, I.A. No. 01/2026 is allowed. Delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 8986/2023 (Suraj Bai Rathiya vs. Durga Bai Rathiya & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant. Thereafter, the writ appellant prefer the instant appeal before this Court with the following prayer:- “1. allow this writ appeal, call for the entire records of the Writ Petition (S) No. 2. set-aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. (S) No. 8986/2023, in the interest of justice. 3. Direct the Respondent authorities to allow the Appellant / Petitioner to discharge his duties on the post of Anganbadi Worker at Anganbadi Center Chainpur, Janpad Panchayat Kartala District Korba, in the interest of justice. 4. Pass any other orders under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 5. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.01 had preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) challenging the order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Collector, Korba, wherein the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker was upheld. The petitioner had applied pursuant to the advertisement issued by Respondent No.02 under letter dated 02.04.2008 and, being fully eligible, was selected and appointed vide order dated 16.09.2022, pursuant to which she joined her duties on 20.09.2022. The appointment of the petitioner was initially challenged by Respondent No.01 before the Collector, Korba, however, the said appeal was rejected vide order dated 18.05.2023. Thereafter, Respondent No.01 preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, who, without proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record, allowed the revision vide order dated 10.10.2023 in Revision No. 63/A-89/2022-23. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P. (S) No. 8986/2023 before this Hon’ble Court, which has been dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2026 by the learned Single Judge, leading to filing of the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant/petitioner was duly selected and appointed on the 4 post of Anganbadi Worker strictly in accordance with the applicable guidelines and advertisement issued by the competent authority, after due verification of all requisite documents. It is further submitted that the Collector, Korba, after proper scrutiny of the entire record and appreciation of evidence, rightly rejected the appeal filed by Respondent No.01 and affirmed the appointment of the petitioner, however the learned Single Judge has erroneously interfered with the said well-reasoned order and has affirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner in a mechanical manner without appreciating that the same suffers from illegality, perversity and non-application of mind. 7. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has also failed to consider that the Collector had duly examined all relevant documents, rules and regulations governing appointment to the post of Anganbadi Worker and had passed a reasoned order rejecting the appeal of Respondent No.1. Despite the same, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the misplaced premise that the Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not act as an appellate authority, without appreciating that interference is warranted where the order suffers from manifest illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from serious legal infirmities and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 5 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the present writ appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed, as the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 after due consideration of the entire facts, records, and settled principles governing judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker was rightly interfered with by the learned Additional Commissioner vide order dated 10.10.2023, as the same was passed upon proper appreciation of material available on record and on finding that the earlier order of the Collector suffered from non- consideration of relevant facts and documents. The contention of the appellant that the Collector had correctly upheld the appointment is misconceived, as the revisional authority has exercised its jurisdiction within permissible limits to correct the illegality and irregularity in the selection process. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the writ Court does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless the order under challenge suffers from manifest illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, which is not the case herein. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of law and facts, and no error apparent on the face of record has been demonstrated by the appellant so as to warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court. 6 Accordingly, the present writ appeal being baseless and misconceived is liable to be dismissed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for State/respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings, documents available on record, as well as the impugned orders passed by the authorities below and the learned Single Judge, this Court finds that the core issue revolves around the validity of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbadi Worker and the legality of the revisional order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected pursuant to an advertisement dated 02.04.2008 and was appointed vide order dated 16.09.2022 after due verification of her documents, pursuant to which she joined on 20.09.2022. The Collector, Korba, after examining the entire material, rejected the appeal filed by Respondent No.01 and upheld the appointment of the petitioner, however, the said order was interfered with by the Additional Commissioner in revision. The learned Single Judge, while 7 considering the challenge to the revisional order, has declined interference holding that the writ Court does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence unless the order suffers from perversity or jurisdictional error. 12. This Court finds that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the settled principle that the scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as if sitting in appeal. The contention of the appellant that the Collector had rightly upheld the appointment and therefore the revisional authority ought not to have interfered, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the revisional authority has recorded detailed findings based on material available on record and has assigned reasons for differing with the Collector’s view. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the revisional authority had examined the issue relating to eligibility and residential certificate and found discrepancies which warranted interference. 13. This Court further finds that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any manifest illegality, perversity, or non-consideration of material evidence so as to warrant interference in intra-court appeal. The conclusion reached is based on proper appreciation of the scope of revisional jurisdiction and limited scope of interference under writ jurisdiction. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate any 8 jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned judgment. 14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok