1 2026:CGHC:22437 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6407 of 2022 1 - Kumari Sunita Rathore D/o Sakul Singh Rathore Aged About 27 Years R/o. Village Ranijhap, Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Kumari Madhuri Rathore D/o Bhola Shankar Rathore R/o. Village Ranijhap, Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gourela, District Bilaspur., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Gourela, District Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. RCS Deo Samant, PL For respondent No.1 : Mr. Viplove Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.05.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/direction/order as to set-aside the order dated 25-02-2015 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued for appointment of Aganbadi Worker at Centre Ranijhap REKHA SINGH -2- (Tikarapara), Tehsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.). The petitioner, respondent No.1 and four other candidates submitted their application form along with relevant documents. The Selection Committee after due scrutiny prepared a merit list. The petitioner was not found eligible being resident of another village but she manipulated the documents showing herself resident of Village Ranijhap and consequently, order of appointment was issued in her favour by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gourela on 31.02.2011. Respondent No.1 challenged the order of appointment of the petitioner only on the ground that proper procedure was not followed by the Selection Committee as contemplated in the guidelines for appointment of Aganbadi worker and Assistant Aganbadi worker. After publication of the select list, objections were not invited and educational qualification of the candidates was not considered properly. A complaint was made by respondent No.1 herein to the effect that her name was deleted malafidely and erroneously. She submitted a copy of voter list, domicile certificate & voter ID to establish that she was a resident of Village Ranijhap. The Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Collector, Pendraroad found that the procedure contemplated in the guidelines has not been complied with and therefore, the selection process including selection of the petitioner to the post of Aganbadi worker was cancelled vide order dated 30.10.2012 and the matter was remitted back to the competent authority to prepare a select list strictly in accordance with law and said authority was also directed to invite objections. The petitioner herein preferred revision petition before the State of Chhattisgarh which was 3 dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2015. The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the order dated 25.02.2015. 3. Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the selection process was initiated by respondents No.2 & 3 for appointment of 56 Aganbadi workers and the Collector in its impugned order cancelled the entire selection process including the select list of 56 candidates. He would further submit that respondent No.1 should have impleaded all 56 selected candidates in the memo of appeal preferred by her but she impleaded the petitioner alone and therefore, impugned order dated 25.02.2015 is bad in law. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Rashmi Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and others, reported in 2006(12) SCC 724. In the said matter, special leave petition preferred by Ku. Rashmi Mishra was dismissed on the ground that she did not implead all selected candidates. Relevant paras 7 & 16 are reproduced herein below : “7. Mr. S.K. Gambhir, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Madhya Pradesh Service Commission, on the other hand, contended that- i) As the viva voce test was the only criteria fixed for selection of Assistant Registrar in terms of the statutory rules, no illegality can be said to have been committed; ii) Appellant could have challenged the vires of the Rules at the threshold, but, having taken part in the selection process, could not be permitted to question the same, having not been selected by the Public Service Commission; iii) The selected candidates having not been impleaded as parties, the writ petition was not maintainable. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Prabodh Verma & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 251]. -4- It is not in dispute that all the 17 selected candidates were not impleaded as parties. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, although, purported to have been impleaded as parties, the same, as noticed hereinbefore, was done on a different premise. Allegations of favoritism against them having been made, indisputably they were necessary parties. In the writ petition, although, the appellant contended that they were being impleaded in their representative capacity; admittedly no step had been taken in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the principles analogous thereto. 16.In the instant case, however, as all the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties in the writ petition, no relief can be granted to the appellant.” 4. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. They submit that in the guidelines for recruitment of Aganbadi workers and Assistant Aganbadi workers, the complete procedure has been contemplated. They would further submit that the Selection Committee was under an obligation to scrutinize all the documents submitted by the candidates and after preparation of the select list, the Selection Committee should have invited objections from candidates but in the instant case, those steps were not followed. It is also contended that there was dispute with regard to place of resident of the petitioner herein and specific complaint was made by respondent No.1 before the Selection Committee but said complaint was not considered, therefore, the Appellate Authority remitted back the matter to the Selection Committee to complete the selection process strictly in accordance with law. They would contend that there was no need to implead all 56 selected candidates as party respondent by respondent No.1 in the appeal preferred before the Additional Collector as she had challenged appointment of the petitioner herein alone and impleaded her as 5 party respondent and also challenged selection process pertaining to Aganbadi Centre Ranijhap (Tikarapara). They would submit that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Perusal of the order passed by the Additional Collector, Pendraroad dated 30.10.2012 would reveal that respondent No.1 in memo of appeal challenged the selection and appointment of the petitioner on the post of Aganbadi worker at Centre Ranijhap (Tikarapara) including selection process, therefore, there was no need to implead all 56 selected candidates, who were appointed at different Aganbadi centres. 7. Thus, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the cited case. 8. Perusal of the order passed by the Additional Collector would make it clear that the Selection Committee did not scrutinize the entire documents submitted by all five candidates. Objections were not invited. There was manipulation which has been observed by the Additional Collector in its order, therefore, the entire selection process was cancelled and matter was remitted back to the Selection Committee with a direction to prepare tentative merit list, invite objections and thereafter to publish a final merit list strictly in accordance with law. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Additional Collector and affirmed by the State Government in revision. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The respondents No.2 & 3 -6- are directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha