1 2026:CGHC:23683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 188 of 2023 Reserved on 8.4.2026 Delivered on 15.06.2026 Tameshwari Rathiya W/o Shyam Sunder Rathiya, Age 34 Years, Occupation- Aganwadi Worker, R/o Village Kashaipali, Raimohalla, Tahsil Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development Department, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Meera Rathiya W/o Mukesh Rathiya R/o Village Kashaipali, Raimohalla, Tahsil Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/ State For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer Mr. FS Khare, Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.06.15 18:42:34 +0530 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (Respondent No.2), whereby, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled in an illegal and arbitrary manner. It is contended that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Commissioner re-appreciated the findings of fact as if acting as an Appellate Authority, an exercise of power which is impermissible under the settled principles of law. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of Madumaus directing to the Respondent authority to allow the petitioner from working in present place of posting. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writs in nature of certiorary quash the Order dtd18.11.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2. In revision no.8/A-89/2020- 2021 10.3 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances, may also be provided to the petitioners. 3. Facts germane to the disposal of this case, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as an Aaganwadi 3 worker on 22.6.2019, pursuant to an advertisement dated 4.8.2017 after following due process of recruitment under the relevant Rules. Respondent No.3 challenged the appointment of the petitioner before the concerned authority (the Collector, Raigarh) contending that the petitioner’s “Below Poverty Line” (BPL) status was overlooked during the selection process and that the petitioner was erroneously appointed. The concerned Collector rejected the challenge brought by respondent No.3, holding that the allegations were not proven. Aggrieved by this, respondent No.3 preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division. However, the Commissioner allowed the revision illegally and set-aside the petitioner’s appointment as Aanganwadi Karyakarta. This reversal was based on the erroneous finding that the petitioner’s ‘Deserted Woman’ Certificate was submitted after the due date and contained no specific issuance date, mentioning only the year. Ultimately, the Commissioner held that in the absence of a specific date proving a full two-year period of desertion, as prescribed in the guidelines for the appointment of Aaganwadi Karyakarta, the Desertion Certificate was devoid of merit and could not be relied upon. It is further submitted that the Commissioner erred in holding that unless the exact date of desertion is mentioned, the Certificate is worthless. It is contended by the petitioner that such a hyper- technical interpretation is contrary to the spirit of the recruitment guidelines and vitiates the impugned order. Hence, this Petition. 4. Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 4 the Commissioner erred in law by misdirecting himself and holding that the Desertion Certificate was not in accordance with law due to the absence of a specific date. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted the Desertion Certificate on the final date for filing objections set by the authorities, therefore, it ought to have been considered in accordance with law. He further submits that the concerned Collector had passed a well-reasoned order while rejecting the appeal of respondent No.3. The concerned Collector, while considering the appeal, passed a detailed order touching upon each and every aspect of the matter and addressing the contentions raised by the parties in their entirety. The Collector noted that since respondent No.3 did not raise any such objection during the prescribed period of inviting objections, the same could not be considered at a later stage. He further submits that the petitioner has been working as Aaganwadi Karyakarta since her initial appointment. He also submits that in view of an interim order dated 12.1.2023 passed by this Court, the petitioner has been continuing in service. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. FS Khare, learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently argues that the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, is in accordance with law. He submits that upon due verification of the Desertion Certificate, the Commissioner found that no specific date was mentioned therein. Thus, the mandatory period of desertion i.e. two years could not 5 be established. Even if the period were calculated from the date of marriage, the fact of a two-year desertion remains unproven. Therefore, any reliance on such a Certificate would be contrary to the State Government’s policy governing the appointment of Aaganbadi Karyakarta. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 7. The material on record demonstrates that at the time when objections were called, these facts were not brought to the notice of the concerned authorities. Further, no such objections were raised either by respondent No.3 or by any other party at the relevant time. The purpose of inviting objections prior to an appointment is to allow parties to raise concerns, thereby giving the candidate an opportunity to rectify any curable defects. In the present case, a scrutiny of the record shows that respondent No.3 did not raise any objection during the prescribed period. Furthermore, though the subject Certificate clearly indicates that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2014, but such fact was not disclosed to the concerned authorities. 8. Since respondent No.3 did not raise any objections during the prescribed period when they were called, she is prevented from raising them at this belated stage. Further, the Desertion Certificate was duly certified by the Sarpanch and the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Gorpar and Janpad Member, Janpad Panchayat, Kharsia. Thus, the hyper-technical objection raised by respondent No.3 regarding the Desertion Certificate being dated 6 only with the year ‘2016’ holds no merit and cannot be entertained at this advanced stage. 9. In light of the foregoing, this Court concludes that the Desertion Certificate remains valid, albeit devoid of the exact day and month of desertion, especially since the relevant year is explicitly recorded 10. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur is hereby set-aside and the order dated 14.6.2021 passed by the Collector, Raigarh is restored and affirmed. 11. With the observations/direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay