1 CGHC010157142026 2026:CGHC:29834-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 591 of 2026 Smt. Dutiya Pradhan W/o Khemsagar Pradhan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Lara, Tahsil Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Kanti Chauhan W/o Pratap Chauhan, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Lara, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, District Raigarh, Collector Marg, Chandra Nagar Colony, Kelo Vihar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh - P I N - 496001. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shiv Kumar Banjare, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shiv Kumar Banjare, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for State on I.A. No.04, ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.07.16 10:15:14 +0530 2 which is an application for condonation of delay of 02 days in preferring the appeal. 2. For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.04), the same is allowed. Delay of 02 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.8228/2023 (Smt. Dutiya Pradhan v. Smt. Kanti Chauhan and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed. 4. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge were that the appellant/writ petitioner was working as an Anganwadi Worker at Mini Anganwadi Kendra, Lara–1, District Raigarh. The dispute relates to the appointment to the said post. Initially, respondent No.1 was appointed as Anganwadi Worker at the aforesaid Mini Anganwadi Kendra. However, her services came to be terminated by respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.01.2017. Challenging the order of termination, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Raigarh, which was registered as Appeal No.96/A-89/2016-17. The said appeal was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 27.06.2017. Admittedly, the said order was never assailed before any higher forum and, consequently, attained finality. Thereafter, the State Government issued a fresh advertisement inviting applications for 3 the post of Anganwadi Worker at Mini Anganwadi Kendra, Lara–1. Respondent No.1 again participated in the selection process and was appointed on the said post vide order dated 15.07.2020. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, respondent No.1 secured such appointment by suppressing the material facts relating to her earlier termination and the dismissal of her statutory appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.1, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Raigarh, placing reliance upon the State Government circulars dated 02.04.2008 and 25.01.2019, governing the eligibility and selection criteria for appointment of Anganwadi Workers. The Collector, Raigarh, by order dated 07.02.2022, allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment of respondent No.1. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the appellant/writ petitioner submitted a representation seeking her appointment to the said post. Considering her claim, respondent No.2 appointed the appellant/writ petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at Mini Anganwadi Kendra, Lara–1, vide order dated 22.02.2022, whereupon she joined and commenced discharging her duties. 6. Subsequently, respondent No.1 preferred Revision Case No.83/A- 89/2021-22 before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (Camp at Raigarh), challenging the order dated 07.02.2022 passed by the Collector. The appellant/writ petitioner 4 entered appearance in the revision proceedings and filed her detailed written submissions along with copies of the relevant Government circulars. The Additional Commissioner, however, by the impugned order, allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.1 and interfered with the order passed by the Collector. 7. Assailing the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the appellant/writ petitioner instituted a writ petition bearing WPS No.8228/2023 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by the judgment and order impugned in the present appeal, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 28.02.2026. 8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/writ petitioner has preferred the present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner would submit that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the facts on record as well as the applicable Government policy and, therefore, suffers from manifest errors of law warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 had earlier been removed from the post of Anganwadi Worker by order dated 06.01.2017, and the statutory appeal preferred by her against the 5 said order came to be dismissed by the Collector, Raigarh, on 27.06.2017. The said order was never challenged before any higher forum and, therefore, attained finality. Despite the same, respondent No.1 again participated in the fresh selection process for the very same post by suppressing the material fact relating to her earlier termination and the dismissal of her appeal. According to learned counsel, such participation was clearly impermissible in view of the Government Circulars dated 02.04.2008 and 25.01.2019, which prescribe the eligibility conditions for appointment of Anganwadi Workers. 10. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in treating the disqualification contained in the aforesaid Government Circulars as a mere procedural irregularity. It is argued that the disqualification is substantive in nature and is intended to prevent a person, whose services have earlier been terminated for misconduct or other valid reasons, from seeking reappointment to the same post. Therefore, respondent No.1 was ineligible to participate in the fresh selection process, and the Collector rightly set aside her appointment. It is further submitted that once respondent No.1 had availed the statutory remedy by preferring an appeal before the Collector against her termination and the same stood dismissed on 27.06.2017, the matter attained finality. In such circumstances, the subsequent resolution dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Janpad Panchayat, Pusour, could neither override 6 nor nullify the order of the Collector, who is the competent statutory authority. According to learned counsel, the learned Single Judge committed an error in placing reliance upon the said resolution while affirming the revisional order, despite the fact that the resolution had no legal efficacy to supersede or dilute the binding effect of the Collector's order. 11. Learned counsel would also submit that respondent No.1 neither challenged the validity of the Government Circulars dated 02.04.2008 and 25.01.2019 nor assailed the order of the Collector dated 27.06.2017 before any competent forum. In the absence of any challenge to the policy or the statutory order, the learned Single Judge ought not to have sustained the revisional order by giving precedence to the resolution of the Janpad Panchayat over the order passed by the Collector. Lastly, it is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in observing that the revisional authority had rightly interpreted the Government Circulars. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction is confined to examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the order under challenge and does not confer an unrestricted power to reinterpret or rewrite the Government policy. The revisional authority, according to learned counsel, travelled beyond the scope of its jurisdiction while interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the Collector. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as the order of the revisional authority, deserve to be set aside 7 and the order passed by the Collector restoring the appellant's appointment be upheld. 12. Per contra, learned State counsel, duly supported by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would submit that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned judgment upon due consideration of the material available on record and the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in the present intra-court appeal. It is contended that the revisional authority has rightly appreciated the scope and applicability of the Government Circulars dated 02.04.2008 and 25.01.2019, and has correctly held that the appointment of respondent No.1 could not have been annulled solely on the basis of her earlier termination. It is further submitted that the resolution dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Janpad Panchayat, Pusour, having restored the entitlement of respondent No.1 to participate in the selection process, was rightly taken into consideration by the revisional authority as well as by the learned Single Judge. According to the respondents, the appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity, jurisdictional error or patent illegality either in the order passed by the revisional authority or in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. It is, therefore, submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based on proper appreciation of the facts and the governing policy, do not call for interference in an appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 8 2006, and consequently, the present writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 28.02.2026 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.8228/2023. 14. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present writ appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in affirming the order passed by the revisional authority, whereby the order of the Collector setting aside the appointment of respondent No.1 as Anganwadi Worker at Mini Anganwadi Kendra, Lara–1, District Raigarh, was reversed. The ancillary issue is whether respondent No.1, whose services had earlier been terminated and whose statutory appeal against such termination had been dismissed, was eligible to participate in the subsequent selection process in view of the Government Circulars dated 02.04.2008 and 25.01.2019, and whether the learned Single Judge erred in upholding the revisional order without properly appreciating the binding effect of the said Circulars, the finality attached to the Collector's order dated 27.06.2017, and the factual matrix of the case. 15. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- 9 “8. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Camp at Raigarh, in Revision Case No. 83/A-89/2021- 22, whereby the revision preferred by Respondent No.1 was allowed and the order dated 07.02.2022 passed by the Collector, Raigarh, was set aside. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said revisional order and restoration of the order passed by the Collector. 9. The foundational facts are largely undisputed. Respondent No.1 was initially appointed as Anganwadi Worker and was removed from service vide order dated 06.01.2017. Her appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Collector on 27.06.2017. Subsequently, a resolution dated 27.07.2018 was passed by the General Body of Janpad Panchayat, Pusour, holding that the earlier removal of Respondent No.1 was wrongful and directing her reinstatement. Thereafter, pursuant to a fresh advertisement and selection process, Respondent No.1 was appointed as Mini Anganwadi Worker vide order dated 15.07.2020. The appointment was later set aside by the Collector on 07.02.2022 on the appeal preferred by the present petitioner, which order was ultimately reversed by the learned Additional Commissioner in revision. 10. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the impugned revisional order is contrary to the State Government circulars dated 02.04.2008 and 25.01.2019, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of 10 the Constitution of India, and suffers from arbitrariness and non-application of mind. It is further contended that once Respondent No.1 had been terminated earlier, she was rendered permanently ineligible for re-appointment in view of Clause 1.4 of the circular dated 02.04.2008. On the other hand, Respondent No.1 has placed reliance on the subsequent resolution dated 27.07.2018 of the General Body of Janpad Panchayat, Pusour, and the order of the Chief Executive Officer dated 28.07.2018, whereby her earlier removal was declared wrongful and reinstatement was directed. It is also contended that the appointment dated 15.07.2020 was made after due verification and in accordance with the prevailing policy, and that the learned Additional Commissioner, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, has rightly corrected the manifest illegality committed by the Collector. 11. Upon a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the learned Additional Commissioner has exercised revisional jurisdiction within the permissible limits of law. The revisional authority has taken into consideration the entire factual background, including the resolution of the General Body of the Janpad Panchayat, which held the earlier termination of Respondent No.1 to be wrongful. Once the competent local authority itself declared the termination to be unjustified, the rigour of Clause 1.4 of the circular dated 02.04.2008 could not have been applied mechanically against Respondent No.1. 11 12. The contention of the petitioner that the disqualification under Clause 1.4 operates absolutely and permanently is misconceived. The said clause cannot be read in isolation and must be interpreted in a purposive manner. Where the very foundation of termination is subsequently found to be wrongful by the competent authority, such termination cannot be treated as a valid disqualification so as to forever debar a candidate from consideration. The learned Additional Commissioner has rightly appreciated this legal position. The order dated 07.02.2022 passed by the Collector, Raigarh, does not appear to have considered the subsequent developments, particularly the resolution dated 27.07.2018 and the consequential order dated 28.07.2018. The Collector proceeded on the assumption that the earlier termination had attained finality, which assumption was factually and legally incorrect in view of the later resolution of the General Body. The revisional authority was, therefore, justified in interfering with such an order. 13. The allegation of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is wholly unfounded. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any hostile discrimination or unequal treatment meted out to her. The mere setting aside of an order passed in her favour does not ipso facto amount to violation of constitutional guarantees. Equality before law does not mean negative equality, nor does it confer a right to perpetuate an illegality. The submission that the impugned order is non-speaking or cryptic is also 12 without substance. 14. A perusal of the impugned order dated 22.09.2023 reveals that the learned Additional Commissioner has considered the relevant facts, documents, and policy provisions before arriving at a conclusion. Merely because the conclusion is adverse to the petitioner, the order cannot be branded as arbitrary or unreasoned. So far as the reliance placed by the petitioner on the State Government circulars dated 02.04.2008 and 25.01.2019 is concerned, this Court finds that the revisional authority has not ignored the said circulars but has interpreted them in the light of the peculiar facts of the case. Administrative circulars are intended to guide decision-making and cannot be applied in a rigid or mechanical manner divorced from the factual context. The petitioner’s plea that her service career has been adversely affected, though sympathetic, cannot override legality. 15. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is concerned with the legality and correctness of administrative action and not with equitable considerations alone. No vested or indefeasible right has accrued in favour of the petitioner merely by virtue of her temporary continuance on the post pursuant to the Collector’s order. This Court also finds merit in the submission of Respondent No.1 that the writ petition suffers from selective disclosure of facts. The petitioner has not placed due emphasis on the resolution and orders which formed the basis of Respondent No.1’s 13 reinstatement and subsequent appointment. A litigant invoking extraordinary jurisdiction is expected to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out. The impugned order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner does not suffer from illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 22.09.2023 is upheld.” 16. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, having minutely examined the pleadings, the documents brought on record, the Government Circulars dated 02.04.2008 and 25.01.2019, as well as the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out warranting interference in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006. 17. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that respondent No.1 was rendered permanently ineligible to participate in the fresh selection process on account of her earlier termination and the dismissal of her statutory appeal by the Collector on 27.06.2017. However, we find ourselves unable to 14 accept the said contention. The learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that subsequent to the dismissal of the statutory appeal, the General Body of the Janpad Panchayat, Pusour, by its resolution dated 27.07.2018, declared the earlier action of termination to be wrongful and directed reinstatement of respondent No.1, which was followed by the consequential order dated 28.07.2018. The revisional authority has taken into consideration the entire factual background, including the aforesaid subsequent developments, before arriving at the conclusion that respondent No.1 could not have been held disqualified merely on the basis of the earlier order of termination. 18. We are also in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the Government Circulars dated 02.04.2008 and 25.01.2019 cannot be construed in a manner divorced from the factual backdrop of the case. Administrative instructions are required to be applied harmoniously with the attendant facts and circumstances and cannot be interpreted so rigidly as to perpetuate an injustice where the very foundation of the alleged disqualification has subsequently been held to be unsustainable by the competent authority. 19. The interpretation placed by the revisional authority, as affirmed by the learned Single Judge, neither appears to be arbitrary nor contrary to the policy governing the field. Equally, the submission that the order of the Collector dated 27.06.2017 had attained 15 finality and, therefore, the subsequent resolution of the Janpad Panchayat was without jurisdiction, does not persuade us to take a different view in the present appeal. The revisional authority as well as the learned Single Judge have considered the effect of the subsequent resolution and the consequential order while adjudicating the dispute. It is well settled that in an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench does not sit as a Court of first instance to re-appreciate every factual aspect unless the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are shown to be perverse, manifestly illegal, based on no evidence, or suffering from a patent jurisdictional error. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate the existence of any such infirmity. 20. We further find that the learned Single Judge has assigned cogent, convincing and legally sustainable reasons while declining to interfere with the revisional order. The findings recorded are based upon due appreciation of the pleadings, the documentary evidence and the applicable Government Circulars. The appellant has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, misapplication of law, perversity of findings or violation of any statutory provision which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 21. It is equally trite that the scope of interference in a writ appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Judge is limited. Unless the conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge are 16 demonstrated to be wholly unsustainable in law or resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice, the appellate Court would be slow in substituting its own view merely because another view is possible on the same set of facts. In the present case, we find that the view adopted by the learned Single Judge is a plausible and legally tenable view arising from the material available on record. 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.8228 of 2023 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest error of law warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the writ appeal, being devoid of substance and merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. The judgment and order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.8228 of 2023 is hereby affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu