1 2026:CGHC:24631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7565 of 2023 1 - Smt. Sheetal Soni W/o Shri Onkar Soni Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Lakhram, Police Station- Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - District Program Officer Women And Child Development, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Program Officer Integrated Women And Child Development Project, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.06.19 17:24:24 +0530 2 8 - Gram Panchayat Lakharam Through The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Lakharam, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Smt. Manju Yadav W/o Shri Arun Kumar Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Lakhram, Police Station- Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - Smt. Sukh Bai Kewat W/o Shri Divendra Kumar Kewat Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Lakhram, Police Station- Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 11 - Smt. Rajani Yadav W/o Shri Navneet Kumar Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Lakhram, Police Station- Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 12 - Smt. Lata Dewangan W/o Shri Ramanuj Dewangan Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Lakhram, Police Station- Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 13 - Smt. Arati Kewat W/o Shri Durga Prasad Kewat Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Lakhram, Police Station- Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 14 - Smt. Neeti Kewat W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Kewat Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Lakhram, Police Station- Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 15 - Smt. Chandra Kali Sarthi W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Sarthi Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Lakhram, Police Station- Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 16 - Smt. Karuna Verma W/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Lakhram, Police Station- Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 17 - Smt. Payal Verma W/o Shri Shivchand Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Lakhram, Police Station- Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 18 - Smt. Premlata Yadav W/o Shri Ram Krishna Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Lakhram, Police Station- Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate For State/Resp. Nos. 1 to 5 & 7 For Respondent No.8 : : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Vijay K. Sahu, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 18/06/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application pursuant to Advertisement (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.7 for appointment to the post of Anganbadi Sahaika at Anganbadi Kendra 3, Village Lakhram, District Bilaspur. It is contended that she was illegally declined appointment. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to female member of Below Poverty Line (BPL) and had also passed Class - 8th (Middle School) run by Scheduled Tribe Department (Annexure P-5). As per Circular (Annexure P-2) issued by Women and Child Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner ought to have allotted six marks for being a member of BPL category and three marks for having studied in a school run by the Tribal Department. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to get a total of nine bonus marks, which were not awarded to her, as is evident from the tabular chart (Annexure P-4). It is also submitted that respondent No.7 had no authority to issue the appointment order for the post of Anganbadi Sahaika, despite that, it conducted the entire 4 selection process of appointment and subsequently issued the appointment order (Annexure P-6) in favour of private respondent No.17. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the present petition may be admitted for hearing. 3. The State has filed its reply. Learned State counsel, referring to the reply and drawing Court’s attention to the application submitted by the petitioner (page 34 of the writ petition), submits that the petitioner has nowhere disclosed that she belonged to the BPL category. Furthermore, she has also not enclosed any certificate or valid document in this regard. He further submits that, as per Annexure R-2, at the time of inviting claims/objections to the tabulated marks, the petitioner had raised an objection regarding non-award of marks for the BPL category but the same was rejected as she had not filed any certificate/valid document along with her application. It is also submitted that she did not raise any claim at that stage regarding entitlement to three additional bonus marks for passing Middle School from an Ashram run by Schedule Caste / Schedule Tribe Department. Learned State counsel further contends that, having participated in the entire selection process, the petitioner cannot subsequently challenge the selection process conducted by respondent No.7. Hence, the present petition deserves to be rejected at the motion stage. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 also extended his support to the submissions made by learned State counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. As per the Circular (Annexure P-2) issued by the Women and Child Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, while scrutiny 5 for appointment of Anganbadi Sahaika, six bonus marks are to be awarded to female candidates belonging to the Below Poverty Line category, and three bonus marks are to be awarded to candidates who have passed Middle School from the Ashram run by the SC/ST Department. A perusal of petitioner’s application (page 34 of the writ petition) shows that she had not enclosed any document / certificate etc. along with her application to demonstrate the fact that she belonged to member of BPL category. The certificate, which was filed by the petitioner, issued by the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Lakhram also does not demonstrate aforesaid fact. The tabular chart prepared by respondent No.7 while inviting objections/claims also supports aforesaid fact. 7. As far as non-granting of additional marks on account of having studied in a Middle School run by the Tribal Department is concerned, the information filled by the petitioner merely indicates that she has passed Class - 8th from a School run by Tribal Department. Neither the application nor the progress report (Annexure P-5) established that she passed Class – 8th from a Kanya Ashram run by SC/ST Department. Moreover, she did not raise this claim while submitting objections under Annexure R-2 on 22.02.2023. 8. So far as having no authority to issue appointment order (Annexure P- 6) by respondent No.7 is concerned, the petitioner has not filed any document to demonstrate the fact that select list had not been approved by the Selection Committee or the Janpad Panchayat, Bilha. Annexure-P/6 is only an appointment order issued subsequent to the compliance of the procedure. Therefore, the ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is also found to be 6 inappropriate. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition, hence the same is dismissed at the motion stage. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar