1 2026:CGHC:7065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7841 of 2023 Meen Kumari D/o Mahipal Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Madai, Post Kothmi Kala, Tahsil Sakola, District : Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Women And Child Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Collector Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Project Officer Integrated Child Welfare Service, Project, Marvahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Marvahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Champa Maravi W/o Ajit Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Madai, Post Kothmi Kala, Tahsil Sakola, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.02.11 10:43:42 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For State/ Respondent : Shri Ashutosh Shukla, PL. For Respondent No.6 : Shri Aamir Khan appears on behalf of Shri TK Jha, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/02/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur C.G. and order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur C.G. in Revision Case No.25A-89/2021-22 which in turn arose out of the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the Collector, Bilaspur C.G. in Panchayat Appeal case No.29/A-89/2017-18. 2. By the orders impugned, delay in preferring the revision has been condoned and revision preferred by Respondent No.6 has been allowed. Vide order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the Collector, Bilaspur C.G., appeal preferred by Respondent No.6 has been rejected on the grounds of limitation. 3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 1. Quash/set aside the order dated 13/6/23 and 3/8/23 passed by respondent no. 2 in Revenue Case no. 25 A-89/2021-22. 2. Direct the respondent authorities to allow and permit the petitioner to work as Aganwadi Karyakarta and 3 further please to direct to pay the salary every month. 3. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 4. Necessary facts of the case are that respondents no. 4, invited an application for appointment to the post of Aganwadi Karyakarta vide advertisement dated 30/3/2017. That petitioner and respondent no. 6 and other 11 person applied for the post. That accordingly a merit list was prepared by the respondent from the office of respondent no. 4 and invited an objection on the merit list. That in the merit list, the petitioner got 49.96% and the respondent no. 6, got 55.72% (including 6 number for Below Poverty Line). That an objection was submitted, by the petitioner with regard to grant of the 6 number for BPL, and on consideration of the objection, the final merit list was prepared and petitioner was placed at Serial number 1. That respondent no. 6 secure 49.72% and petitioner got 49.96%. That accordingly the appointment order dated 3/11/2017 issued by the respondent no. 5 in favour of the petitioner. That after the appointment and petitioner is still working on the post. That it was well within the knowledge of respondent no.6 that appointment order was already issued in favour of the petitioner, but she was sitting and after the lapse of more than 7 months already, she preferred appeal to the 4 Collector challenging the appointment of petitioner as Angan Badi Karyakarta on 7/5/2018 alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. That as per contention of respondent no. 6, she applied for copy on 8/2/18 and received on 13/2/18 and thereafter she made the request for reconsideration of case, but to that effect no documents had been submitted. That order was passed on 3/11/17 and after the period of 4 months how and from where she received the information, to that effect nothing was mention in the application. That further after receiving the documents on 13/2/18, she had filed an appeal on 7/5/18, that too there was delay. That no explanation of each and every days was given by the respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 3, after considering the fact, that respondent no. 6, had not shown sufficient ground and no documents had been submitted for explanation, rejected appeal and application vide order dated 25/4/2019. That against the order of respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 6 preferred revision, with a delay of 769 days. That again no sufficient explanation was offered by the respondent no. 6 neither in the application nor in the arguments submitted by the respondent no. 6. That from the memo of appeal it appears that same was prepared in the year 2019 and was filed in the year 2021. That petitioner submitted the reply to the revision and to application under section 5 of limitation Act. That it is pertinent to mention, here that order of respondent no. 3 was not challenge, as in the relief clause the respondent no.6 prayed for 5 setting aside the order dated 20/4/19, though on that date no order was passed and order was only passed on 25/4/2019, hence on this ground also the revision filed by the respondent no. 6 in liable to be rejected. That petitioner had also submitted, the Written argument before the respondent no. 2. That respondent no. 2 without considering the fact, that respondent no. 6, just to harass and misusing and abusing the provision of law and with malafide intention, are preferring an delayed appeal and revision, had allowed the application under section 5 of the limitation Act on 13/6/2023. That neither the respondent no. 6 had explained the delay of more than 2 years nor the respondent no. 2 while considering the application had given any reason to condone the delay, while allowing the application. That order for condoning the delay in an order which was passed without application of mind, and in utter violation to the provision of law and same is liable to be set aside. Thereafter vide order dated 3/8/2023, the respondent no. 2 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 25/4/19 and 3/11/17 of respondent no. 3 and 5 without considering that order dated 25/4/19 is not challenge by the respondent no. 6 and only the order dated 20/4/19 was challenge. That respondent no. 2 had not consider that respondent no. 6 got married in the year 2013 and hence she cannot claim the benefit of the BPL number from her father. That after marriage, she create and join new family, hence the benefit of father's or grand father's are not available, to the respondent no. 6, hence from list, 6 6 number are to be deducted and petitioner will be at S. No. 1 in the merit list and respondents authorities had rightly issued an appointment order in favour of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 3.8.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur whereby, the Additional Commissioner has entertained revision preferred by Respondent No.6 on merits though, Respondent No.6 has filed the said revision stating that Collector, Bilaspur has committed an error of law while dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur was required to remand the matter back to the concerned Collector for deciding the matter on merits after condoning the delay if any, however, the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur has committed illegality while entertaining the matter on merits. He further submits that even on merits, the petitioner is having a good case as Respondent No.6 has not produced the appropriate Below Poverty Line certificate as Respondent No.6 is married and accordingly, she has to produce BPL certificate of herself or of her husband, however, in the present case, BPL certificate produced by Respondent No.6 belongs to father of Respondent No.6. As such, on merits also, the petitioner has a good case. Further without taking into account the 6 marks provided for BPL certificate, Respondent No.6 has got 7 49.72 marks whereas, the petitioner has got 49.96 marks and as such, petitioner has rightly been appointed and the Additional Commissioner has committed illegality while not considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 7. Additionally, it was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, Respondent No.6 has also been appointed as Angan Badi Karyakarta though counsel for the petitioner is not having knowledge as to on which Gram Panchayat, Respondent No.6 has been appointed as Angan Badi Karyakarta. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No.6 submits that non grant of 6 marks entitiled as per BPL certificate by the concerned authorities is not in accordance with law. Respondent No.6 has rightly submitted the BPL certificate which ought to have been considered by the authorities concerned but the same has not been considered. The Collector, Bilaspur when an appeal was filed before him by the Resondent No.6, has erroneously dismissed the appeal holding it to be barred by limitation and as such, the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur after appreciating all aspects has rightly entertained the appeal in favour of Respodent No.6 and has rightly passed order in favour of Respondent No.6 which is not required to be interfered with. He further submits that Respondent No.6 filed the BPL certificate belonging to her father which should have been considered but this has not been considered by the respondent authorities and as such, the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur has rightly passed the order 8 which is not required to be interfered with. If the 6 marks entitlied as per BPL certificate is taken into consideration, Respondent No.6 will get 55.72 marks which is much more than that of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the State/respondents would submit that well reasoned order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur which is not required to be interfered with. However, on query, learned counsel for the respondent/State could not say anything as to whether the matter is required to be remanded back to the Collecter concered as the Collector has not heard the matter on merits and the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation itself. 10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available with the petition carefully. 11. From perusal of the record, it appears that the main dispute is in respect of the BPL certificate which the Respondent No.6 has filed. After addition of 6 marks provided because of BPL certificate, Respondent No.6 will obtain much more marks than that of the petitioner i.e. 55.72 marks. The BPL certificate on the basis of which, 6 marks will be obtained belongs to father of Respondent No.6 whereas, Respondent No.6 is married and as such, Respondent No.6 ought to have produced BPL certificate belonging to herself or her husband. The concerned authorities i.e. CEO Janpad Panchayat Marwahi has rightly considered the aforesaid aspect and not considered the BPL certificate of the 9 Respondent No.6 and accordingly, the petitioner who obtained more marks than Respondent No.6 has rightly been appointed as Angan Badi Karyakarta for Angan Badi Centre, Madai. 12.It is noteworthy to mention that the BPL certificate is a certificate which denotes a family to be below poverty line. After marriage, the parties are required to produce BPL certificate of their own or of the family where they are married. After marriage, Respondent No.6 cannot take benefit of BPL certificate of her father and she ought to have produced BPL certificate of her own or of her husband or atleast of her inlaws. 13.Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and further considering the fact that right from the beginning the petitioner is working in the post in question, and further it has been submitted that Respondent No.6 has also obtained appointment on the post of Angan Badi Karyakarta, though in some other village, I consider the present to a fit case where interference is required to be made by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed while setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur C.G. Consequently, the appointment of the petitioner as Angan Badi Karyakarta is held to be in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash