1 CGHC010167792022 2026:CGHC:34487 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3652 of 2022 1 - Radhika Gupta D/o Neelmani Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Shitlamata Ward No. 8, Nagar Panchayat Rahod, Tahsil Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Rahod, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Rajni Chouhan W/o Jonaram Chouhan R/o Badpara, Rahod, Ward No. 8, Nagar Panchayat Rahod, Tahsil - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Kamlesh Patel, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Amandeep Singh, P.L. For Other respondents : None. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the order dated 27/1/2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 in appeal No.17A- 89/2019-20. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to render her duties without any interruption. iii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that an advertisement was issued for the post of Mini Aanganbadi Worker, Ward No.8, Nagar Panchayat Rahod. He would submit that the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 applied for the said post. He would submit that the petitioner was selected and an order of appointment was issued by the Chief Municipal Officer on 21.1.2019. He would contend that the petitioner joined at the Aanganbadi Centre pursuant to the said order. He would further contend that respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the Collector raising various grounds and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 14.2.2020. Thereafter, respondent No.5 preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, which was allowed on 27.1.2022. He would submit that according to the policy with regard to recruitment and removal of Aanganbadi Worker issued by the State Government dated 2.4.2008, 3 the first appeal would lie before the Sub-Divisional Officer in case of an appointment to the post of Aanganbadi Worker in Nagar Panchayat and second appeal lie before the Collector. He would submit that the first appeal preferred before the Collector was not competent, though it was dismissed, and the subsequent appeal preferred before the Commissioner was not maintainable at all. He would submit that the authority concerned exceeded its jurisdiction while entertaining the second appeal preferred by respondent No.5 and setting aside the appointment. He would pray to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that according to Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995, an appeal lies before the Collector against an order challenging the appointment of an Aanganbadi Worker and a second appeal lies before the Commissioner. He would submit that the Commissioner exercised the power of the Second Appellate Authority according to Rules of 1995 and this petition deserves to be dismissed. He would submit that this plea was not taken before the Collector nor has this issue been pleaded in the writ petition, therefore, this ground is not available to the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. It is a well-settled principle of law that issue of jurisdiction is a question of law which can be raised at any stage though the petitioner has not pleaded this ground in the writ petition, as it goes to the root of the case, it can be raised during the course of argument and therefore, the 4 objection raised by counsel for the State is hereby rejected. Clause 11 of the policy dated 2.4.2008 deals with appeal. Clause 11 (D) states that in the case of an appointment in a Nagar Palika or Nagar Panchayat, an appeal lies before the Sub-Divisional Officer and according to this clause, the second appeal would lie before the District Collector. Clause 11 is reproduced herein below: “11. अपील :- आंगनवाड़ी कार्यकार्ता / सहायिर्यकाओं का यिनर्ययि का प्रयिर्य में का गई यिनर्ययि स सहामेंर्ता न हान पीर अपील का प्रवाधान इस प्रकार हा"ग :- का. जनपीद पीचार्यर्ता द्वार चार्यन / यिनर्ययि यिकार्य जन पीर चार्यन/यिनर्ययि आंदश का यिवारूद्ध यिवायिहार्ता प्रयिर्य का र्ताहार्ता अपील छत्तीसगढ़ पीचार्यर्ता रज अधिधायिनर्यमें 1993 का प्रवाधान" का र्ताहार्ता यिवायिहार्ता अधिधाकार का समेंक्ष का ज सका ग। ख. छत्तीसगढ़ नगर पीधिलका यिनगमें अधिधायिनर्यमें 1956 का अर्तागर्ता गयि1र्ता नगर पीधिलका यिनगमें" में यिनर्य यिकार्य गर्य आंगनवाड़ी कार्यकार्ताओं / सहायिर्यकाओं का मेंमेंल" में धिजल कालक्टर का अपील का जर्ताग। ग. धिजल कालक्टर का आंदश का यिवारूद्ध यिद्वार्तार्य अपील आंर्य / सचालका नगरर्य प्रशसन एवा यिवाकास का का जवाग। घ. छत्तीसगढ़ नगर पीधिलका अधिधायिनर्यमें 1961 का अर्तागर्ता गयि1र्ता नगर पीधिलका पीरिरषद8/नगर पीचार्यर्ता में यिनर्य यिकार्य गर्य आंगनवाड़ी कार्यकार्ताओं / सहायिर्यकाओं का मेंमेंल में अनयिवाभागर्य अधिधाकार (रजस्वा) का अपील का जवाग । ड. अनयिवाभागर्य अधिधाकार (रजस्वा) का आंदश का यिवारूद्ध धिजल कालक्टर का यिद्वार्ताग अपील का जवाग। चा. र्ययिद में<ल्र्यकान सयिमेंयिर्ता द्वार चार्यन यिकार्य जर्ता हा> र्ता अपील धिजल कालक्ट?र का समेंक्ष का जवाग। स्पीष्टीकारणःB- चा<Cयिका इन यिनदDश" का र्ताहार्ता काE र्ता यिनर्ययिर्य" का यिवारूद्ध अपील का प्रवाधान यिकार्य गर्य हा> अर्ताB यिशकार्यर्ता प्रप्त हान पीर सबंधिधार्ता यिशकार्यर्ताकार्ता का अपील का प्रयिर्य का यिवास्र्ताEर्ता जनकार द जकार अपील कारन का सझावा यिदर्य जन चायिहार्य।" 6. In the present case, the order of appointment to the post of Mini Aanganbadi Worker was issued by the Chief Municipal Officer on 5 21.1.2019 and the said order was executed. Subsequently, respondent No.5 challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Collector. According to the policy dated 2.4.2008, the appeal preferred before the Collector was not competent though it was dismissed on merits. It is not in dispute that the issue of jurisdiction was not raised by the petitioner before the said authorities. Against the order passed by the Collector dated 14.2.2020, a second appeal was preferred by respondent No.5 and the said authority allowed the second appeal preferred by respondent No.5 vide order dated 27.1.2022. Before the Second Appellate Authority as well, no objection was raised with regard to jurisdiction. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and Ors., vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana and Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136, held that an order passed by an authority having no jurisdiction is null and void and the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. In the present case as well, neither the Collector nor the Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the first appeal or second appeal preferred by respondent No.5, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner dated 27.1.2022 is hereby set aside. Respondent No.5 would be at liberty to challenge the order of appointment of the petitioner before the appropriate forum, if so advised. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi