1 2026:CGHC:94 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on 25-11-2025 Pronounced on 02-01-2026 WPS No. 3912 of 2024 • Smt. Saraswati Maravi W/o Vidyadhar Maravi aged About 33 Years R/o Village Sutarra Tahsil Pondi-Uproda District Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Women And Child Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, C.G. 2. Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur, C.G. 3. Collector Korba District Korba, C.G. 4. District Programme Officer Women And Child Welfare Development Department District Korba, C.G. 5. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Korba District Korba, C.G. 6. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pondi-Uproda, District Korba, C. 7. Project Officer Development Department Pondi-Uproda, District Korba, C.G 8. Smt. Ranu Binjhwar W/o Sunil Kumar R/o Village Sutarra Tahsil Pondi- Uproda, District Korba, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State. : Mr. Kawaljeet Siongh Saini, Panel Lawyer For respondent No.5 : Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate. For respondent No.6 : Ms. Seema Vewrma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate. 2 For respondent No.8 : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) C A V Order 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition (S) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 24-6-2024 passed by the respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division in Case No.28/A-89/2022-2023 (Smt. Ranu Binjhwar w/o Sunil Kumar vs. Smt. Saraswati Maravi and others) by which the revision filed by respondent No. 1 Smt. Saraswati Maravi under Section 91 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 read with Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995 has been allowed and the order dated 2-2-2023 passed by the Collector, Korba has been set aside, by affirming the appointment order dated 24-6-2022 of respondent No. 8 Smt. Ranu Binjhwar on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta issued by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Pondi-Uproda, District Korba. 2. This Court has called upon the records of the Project Officer, Interrogated Child Development Scheme Pondi-Uproda, District Korba (hereinafter referred to as “Project Officer”) and following facts were revealed. 2.A. The Project Officer invited applications on 6-5-2022 for appointment of “Aanganbadi Karyakarta” for village Sutarra, Aanganbadi Centre Sadddkapara, Sutarra, Janpad Panchayat Pondi-Uproda, District Korba. Accordingly, the petitioner and respondent No. 8 herein have submitted their application forms for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi 3 Karyakarta. The petitioner along with her application has submitted the certificate of educational qualification, local residential certificate and provisional caste certificate dated 26-5-2022 which was valid for six months issued by the Naib Tahsildar. 2-B Respondent No.8 Ranu Binjhwar apart from her educational qualification of 10th & 12th marks sheets has also submitted domicile certificate of Chhattisgarh, Caste Certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Katghora dated 22-3-2016, election commission card, Aadhar card and other documents. After submissions of their application forms, respondent No.7 Project Officer has issued a list of eligible candidates wherein the petitioner Saraswati Maravi after calculating the weightage on the educational qualification percentage of Class 12th and adding ten marks for caste of Scheduled Tribe was granted 56.92 marks and respondent No.8 Ranu Binjhwar was granted 40.72 marks. 2.C Respondent No.7/Project Officer has called upon the objections in the list wherein objection has been taken regarding petitioner that she is non-residential candidate and regarding respondent No.8 Ranu Binjhwar no objection was taken. The Committee so constituted by respondent No.7 while examining the objection raised by respondent No,.8 Ranu Binjhwar against the petitioner Saraswati Maravi that she is not local resident, observed that Saraswati Maravi has not submitted local residential certificate. Thereafter, a meeting was conducted on 24-6-2022 wherein Evaluation Committee has recommended the appointment of respondent No. 8 Ranu Binjhwar for village Sutarra Aanganbadi as she stood first in the selection list and Revati Yadav stood second. Accordingly, Ranu Binjhwar was appointed on the post of Aanganbadi Worker on 24-6-2022 and she joined her 4 services. 3. Being aggrieved with the appointment order dated 24-6-2022, the petitioner herein Saraswati Maravi had preferred an appeal before the Collector, Korba under Section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules 1995 which was registered as Appeal No.202208050400009/A-89 (15)/2021-22 mainly contending that the appointment order of Ranu Binjhwar is illegal as the appellant Saraswati Maravi has secured 56.92 marks and Ranu Binjhwar has secured less marks ie., 40.72, still she has been appointed which is illegal. It has been further contended that the appellant has submitted voters’ list, domicile certificate which was verified by Sarpanch and Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Sutarra, still without complying with the principle of natural justice, the same has been rejected and the residential certificate of respondent No. 8 has not been issued by the authorized officer, as such the appointment order dated 24-6-2022 issued by the Chief Executive Officer deserves to be set aside. 4. The Collector, Korba has issued notice to respondent Ranu Binjhwar for her appearance before him, but she has chosen not to appear, therefore, ex parte proceeding was initiated. Learned Collector, Korba after considering the facts and material on record has allowed the appeal by recording his finding that the domicile certificate was issued to the petitioner on 13-5-2022 by the Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat Sutarra and social status certificate dated 27-5-2022 was issued by the Tahsildar, Khatghora, District Korba and caste certificate 5 was also issued on 26-5-2022 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh which is being issued prior to 6-6-2022 before calling upon the objections, as such, the Chief Executive Officer has committed illegality in declaring the candidate ineligible who has secured higher marks than the selected candidate and accordingly, Collector Korba set aside the appointment order dated 24-6-2022 and directed that the appointment order be issued in favour of Smt. Sarawswati Maravi w/o. Vidhyadhar Maravi vide its order dated 02-02-2023. 5. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, Smt. Ranu Binhwar has preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur which was registered as Revision No. 28-89/2022-23. The Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur vide its order dated 24-6-2024 (Annexure P/1) has allowed the revision by recording its finding that on the basis of record available before the Evaluation Committee, they have held that the petitioner Smt. Saraswati Maravi is non-local resident and she has been declared ineligible which has been wrongly set aside by the Appellate Court. The revisional Court has also recorded its finding that the record/report has been requisitioned by the appellate authority wherein there is no proof of keeping documents separately i.e. domicile certificate, photo, votor ID card in the report submitted by the Project Officer still the appellate authority has recorded its finding that on the basis of forged documents the order dated 24.06.2022 has been set aside which is illegal and liable to be quashed and accordingly, it has quashed the order passed by the appellate 6 authority and restored the appointment order of respondent No. 8 Smt. Ranu Binjhwar. This order is being assailed by the petitioner before this Court mainly contending that: (a) It has been contended that domicile certificate dated 13-5-2022 issued by the Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat Sutarra and social status certificate dated 27-5-2022 are true and genuine, still respondent authority with mala fide intention has granted appointment to the private respondent though she has secured less marks, as such the order dated 2-2-2023 passed by the Collector, Korba is just and proper which needs no interference by the revisional authority and would pray for allowing the writ petition. (b) The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations made by respondent No.8 Ranu Binjhwar that no relevant documents have been submitted, is illegal and contrary to the material on record as the Police Station Katghora has recorded the statement of Sarpanch and Secretary and both of them have stated that they have issued domicile certificate wherein they have put their signature and seal. To substantiate her submission she has placed on record the statement of Sarpanch. It has been further contended that after the appointment of private respondent, the petitioner has made an application under Right to Information Act to provide the copy of application form along with attached documents and in the RTI the authority has provided the documents then first time it came to the knowledge of the 7 petitioner that voter ID card and domicile certificate issued by the Sarpanch/Secretary have been removed and on 05.07.2022 the petitioner has made a complaint regarding the same to the Collector, Korba. It has been further contended that due to removal of document, the petitioner has illegally declared ineligible which is required to be corrected by this Court by directing Project officer to re-examine the case after considering the documents afresh. It has been further contended that learned Additional Commissioner committed illegality in allowing the revision filed by the respondent No.8 herein Ranu Binjhwar and would pray for setting aside the order passed by the revisional authority. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 2, 3, 4 & 7/State has filed their return stating therein that the present petition filed by the petitioner against the Answering Respondent Authorities, is without any substance and same deserves to be dismissed, as the present petitioner has failed to demonstrate any infringement of right for which a writ may be issued by the Hon'ble Court against Answering Respondents State Authorities. It has been further contended that the Revisional authorities have categorically passed the impugned orders after considering all the aspects of the matter and materials available on record, therefore, the impugned order is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. 7. The respondent No. 8 has filed return mainly contending that the petitioner was not found fit for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi Worker and as per social status report, petitioner Saraswati Maravi 8 belongs to other village and her domicile certificate has been issued after submission of the application form which is temporary one and valid for six months only. It has been further contended that the petitioner has suppressed the facts by not filing the invitation dated 6.5.2022. The requisite qualification and marks distribution are mentioned in the invitation. In para No. 16 of the invitation, it is clearly mentioned that the applicant must be resident of the same village of which the Aanganbadi center is situated, but the petitioner is not at all a resident of village Suttarra, The temporary social certificate would demonstrate that Saraswati Sidar Father Fagulal Sidar resident of Basanpali, village Tehsil Tamnar, District Raigarh which was issued on 26-5-2022 and same is issued after closing date of submission of application form. The certificate issued by the Sarpanch/Sachiv Gram Panchayat was not part of the record as mentioned in the order sheets of both the courts below. It has been further contended that sufficient opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner, as such there is no violation of principle of nature justice. It has also been contended that the advertisement was invited on 6-5-2022 and opening date of application for appointment is 10-5-2022 whereas the last date of filing of the application is 24-5-2022 at 5.00 pm. The essential qualification for appointment is that the candidate should be a resident of particular village which is evident from the invitation dated 6-5-2022. Thus, the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the appointing authority. It has been mentioned in the record that the voter list, photo identification along with Aadhar Card 9 and Ration card have been submitted. but the relevant documents were not annexed along with application form as per record submitted by the Incharge of appointment Committee. It has been further submitted that even the petitioner has not submitted the domicile certificate along-with her application form as they have received information under Right to Information Act. Thus, she would pray for dismissal of the writ petition and for vacating the interim order passed by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interference by the Hon'ble Court while exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Learned counsel for other respondent No. 5 and 6 have adopted the submissions made by the State. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Chhattisgarh, as such domicile certificate should have been considered by the revisional authority in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in WA No. 65/2023 in case of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Nimisha Mishra. He would further submit that the obtaining of caste certificate after cut off date has no rider for considering the case of the petitioner in view of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in WA No. 135/2025 in case of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Gaurav Swarnkar and would pray for allowing the petition. 10 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur after considering all the facts and material on record has passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 reiterating the stand taken by the State would submit that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is legal and justified which does not warrant any interference by this Court. She would further that the revisional authority has rightly set aside the finding of the Appellate Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition and also prayed for vacating the stay order passed by this Court. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. From perusal of the submissions made by the parties, the point emerged for determination of this Court is “Whether the finding recorded by the Revisional Court is legal, justified and liable to be interfered by this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?” 15. Learned revisional authority while examining the order passed by the Collector, Korba has taken into consideration that the Collector, Korba has recorded its finding that on the basis of record available before the Evaluation Committee, they have held that the petitioner Smt. Saraswati Maravi is non-local resident and she has been declared ineligible which has been wrongly set aside by the Appellate Court. The revisional Court has also recorded its finding that the records/report have been requisitioned by the appellate authority 11 wherein there is no proof of keeping documents separately i.e. domicile certificate, photo, votor ID card in the report submitted by the Project Officer still the appellate authority has recorded its finding that on the basis of forged documents the order dated 24.06.2022 has been set aside which is illegal and liable to be quashed accordingly, it has quashed the order passed by the appellate authority and restored the appointment order of respondent No. 8 Smt. Ranu Binjhwar. Record of the case would reveal from very inception of this case before this Court, the petitioner is contending that the documents have been removed and in the rejoinder it has been contended that in the domicile certificate issued by the Sarpanch/Sachiv of Gram Panchayat Sutarra seal and signature of the Sarpanch and Sachiv are original signature of the Sarpanch/Sachiv, as such, she intends to make a new case which is not permissible in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to rebut the findings recorded by the revisional Court that no proof of keeping documents separately i.e. domicile certificate, photo, voter ID card in the report submitted by the Project Officer which clearly establishes that the petitioner has not submitted these documents which is finding of fact. The petitioner has annexed the so called checklist, but the petitioner has not clarified whether in the appeal filed by her, she has submitted the so called checklist to demonstrate that the documents were submitted by her. Even the petitioner has not placed on record the memo of appeal to justify whether this ground has been ever taken by her. It is a well- 12 established principle that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re- appreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely. 17. On the said settled proposition of law, this Court must make reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram reported in 1986 (4) SCC 447. The relevant portion thereof reads as under: “16. … It is well settled that the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an appropriate court if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the courts below have come or in other words a finding which was perverse in law. This principle is well settled. In D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee [(1952) 2 SCC 619] it was laid down by this court that unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention it was not for the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere. If there is evidence on record on which a finding can be arrived at and if the court has not misdirected itself either on law or on fact, then in exercise of the power under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court should refrain from interfering with such findings made by the appropriate authorities. …” 18. The above said proposition of law was reiterated in case of Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj reported in 2008 (9) SCC 1 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it was observed that: “38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor re-appreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to 13 substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law.” 19. Thus, I am of the view that there is no error of law and facts in setting aside the findings in the order passed by the revisional authority, as such there is no basis for this Court to ignore the findings of the authority and come to its own conclusion by appreciating the evidence on record. The same was outside the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any perversity or illegality afflicting the findings of the authority. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The point determined by this Court is answered against the petitioner. 21. The interim order passed by this Court on 16.07.2024 is vacated. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2026.01.02 14:26:17 +0530