1 CGHC010219712026 2026:CGHC:34427-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 642 of 2026 1 - Kumari Sunita Rathore D/o Sakul Singh Rathore, Aged About 27 Years (Presently Aged About -38 Years ), R/o Village -Ranijhap, Tahsil - Pendraroad, District - Bilaspur (C.G. {Now District Gaurela -Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.)} ... Appellant versus 1 - Kumari Madhuri Rathore D//o Bhola Shankar Rathore, R/o Village - Ranijhap, Tahsil -Pendraroad, District -Bilaspur (C.G.){Now District - Gaurela -Pendra -Marwahi (C.G.)} 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gaurela, District -Bilaspur (C.G.){(Now District -Gaurela -Pendra -Marwahi (C.G.)} 3 - Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Gaurela, District -Bilaspur (C.G.){(Now District -Gaurela -Pendra -Marwahi (C.G.) } ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Prasun 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 06 .08.2026 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.08.11 20:27:20 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Parasmani Shriwas learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6407 of 2022 (Kumari Sunita Rathore Vs. Kumari Madhuri Rathore and others) by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by writ petitioner/appellant herein. 4. The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Anganbadi Worker at Anganbadi Centre Ranijhap (Tikarapara), Tehsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur. The appellant, respondent No.1 and four other candidates submitted their applications along with relevant documents. After scrutiny, a merit list was prepared and the appellant was appointed as Anganbadi Worker by order dated 31.02.2011 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gourela. Respondent No.1 challenged the selection and appointment of the appellant before the Additional Collector, Pendraroad, contending that the procedure prescribed under the guidelines for appointment of Anganbadi Workers and Assistant Anganbadi Workers had not been followed, as the documents of the candidates were not properly scrutinized and objections were not invited 3 after preparation of the select list. It was also alleged that her candidature had been wrongly rejected despite her claim of being a resident of Village Ranijhap, supported by voter list, domicile certificate and voter identity card. 5. The Additional Collector, Pendraroad, vide order dated 30.10.2012, found that the procedure prescribed under the relevant guidelines had not been followed and that the documents had not been properly scrutinized. The selection process, including the appointment of the appellant, was accordingly cancelled and the matter was remitted to the competent authority with a direction to prepare a tentative merit list, invite objections and thereafter publish the final merit list in accordance with law. The revision preferred by the appellant before the State Government came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2015. The appellant thereafter approached the learned Single Judge, who also declined to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the selection process was undertaken for appointment of 56 Anganbadi Workers and the Additional Collector, by cancelling the selection process, had effectively affected the rights of all the 56 selected candidates. It is contended that respondent No.1 ought to have impleaded all the selected candidates in the proceedings and, having failed to do so, the order passed by the Additional Collector was unsustainable. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge erred in distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ku. 4 Rashmi Mishra v. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and others, (2006) 12 SCC 724, wherein it was held that where the rights of selected candidates are directly affected, the selected candidates are necessary parties. On these grounds, interference with the impugned order is sought. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the challenge before the Additional Collector was specifically against the selection and appointment of the appellant at Anganbadi Centre Ranijhap (Tikarapara). Respondent No.1 had accordingly impleaded the appellant, whose appointment was directly under challenge. It is submitted that the Additional Collector found serious procedural irregularities in the selection, including failure to properly scrutinize the documents and failure to invite objections after preparation of the select list. It is further submitted that no appointment was directed in favour of respondent No.1; rather, the matter was remitted for fresh selection in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Therefore, there was no occasion to implead all 56 selected candidates. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the Additional Collector was justified in cancelling the selection process pertaining to the concerned Anganbadi Centre and directing a fresh selection. It is therefore submitted that no interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal is liable to be 5 dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents available in record. 10. The principal contention raised by the appellant is that respondent No.1 was required to implead all 56 selected candidates. However, from the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, it is evident that the challenge before the authority was directed against the selection and appointment of the appellant at Anganbadi Centre Ranijhap (Tikarapara), as well as the selection procedure adopted for the said Centre. The fact that the authorities had undertaken a larger selection exercise for 56 Anganbadi Centres/posts would not, by itself, require every selected candidate at different Centres to be impleaded in a proceeding confined to the selection at the concerned Centre. The reliance placed upon Ku. Rashmi Mishra (supra) is, therefore, misplaced. The facts of the said case were materially different, as the relief sought therein directly affected the rights of all the selected candidates who had not been impleaded. In the present case, the appellant, whose appointment was directly under challenge, was impleaded as a party, and the order passed by the Additional Collector did not confer any appointment or final right upon respondent No.1. The matter was merely remitted for conducting the selection afresh in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Thus, the judgment relied upon by the appellant does not advance her case. 11. On consideration of the record, we find that the Additional 6 Collector recorded a specific finding that the Selection Committee had not properly scrutinized the documents submitted by the candidates and that objections were not invited after preparation of the select list. The authority also noticed the dispute regarding the residential status of the appellant. In such circumstances, the direction to undertake the selection afresh after preparing a tentative merit list, inviting objections and thereafter publishing the final merit list cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 12. In the present case, the Additional Collector did not finally determine the appellant's rights adversely on merits but only directed the competent authority to undertake the selection process afresh in accordance with law. Such direction, particularly in the face of established procedural irregularities, does not warrant interference. Upon perusal of the impugned order it reflects that the learned Single Judge has duly considered the rival submissions and the judgment relied upon by the appellant and has rightly held that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from those in Ku. Rashmi Mishra (supra). The learned Single Judge further found that the Selection Committee had failed to scrutinize the documents properly and had not invited objections, which constituted sufficient justification for setting aside the defective selection process and directing its reconsideration in accordance with the prescribed guidelines. 13. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single 7 Judge or in the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the State Government. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any ground warranting interference with the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge. The challenge to the order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the State Government was rightly rejected, and the direction for conducting the selection process in accordance with the applicable guidelines calls for no interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil