1 CGHC010231722026 2026:CGHC:34057-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 661 of 2026 1 - Smt. Ramleela Bhagat W/o Parameshwar Bhagat Aged About 50 Years R/o- 81, Village Bangaon, Farsabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) Sahayika At A W C Uraontoli, Sector Farasabahar, Project Farasabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sumitra Paikra W/o Mahesh Painkra Aged About 48 Years R/o- 120/1, Village Farsabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) Sahayika At A W C Mahkultola,, Sector Farasabahar, Project Farasabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Sabina Minj W/o Binod Minj Aged About 43 Years R/o- 90, Ward No. 05, Village Matipahar Chharra, Farasabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) Sahayika At A W C Junatoli, Sector Bhelwan, Project Farasabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Amarmati Kujur W/o Khristofar Kujur Aged About 48 Years R/o- 459, Village Farasabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) Sahayika At A W C Jhagarpur, Sector Farasabahar, Project Farasabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Sushila Patre W/o Narain Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o- 263, Village Farasabahar, District-Jashpur (C.G.), Sahayika At A W C Kapukona 1, Sector Farasabahar, Project Farasabahar, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Sushila Panna W/o Martin Panna Aged About 54 Years R/o- 466, Village Bhelwan, District- Jashpur (C.G.), Sahayika At A W C Purvi Bhelwan, Sector Bhelwan, Project Farasabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Putli Bai W/o Laldev Sai Aged About 48 Years R/o- Village Pagurabahar, Kandaibahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) Sahayika At A W C Ganjubasti, Sector Pamshala, Project Tapkara-2, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 8 - Smt. Khushmani Bai W/o Deonath Sai Aged About 46 Years R/o- Village Sikirma, Manderbahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) Sahayika At A W C Sahtoli, Sector Pamshala, Project Tapkara-2, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 9 - Smt. Shanta Kerketta W/o Ijidor Aged About 51 Years R/o- 210, Ward No.11, Village Amdiha, Kadelkachar, Tapkara, District- Jashpur ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 (C.G.) Sahayika At A W C Putlibasti, Sector Pamshala, Project Tapkara- 2 District- Jashpur (C.G. ) 10 - Smt. Gangawati Bai W/o Dalapti Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Village Kersai, Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.) Sahayika At A W C Ghansimunda, Sector Kersai, Project Tapkara- 2, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Women And Child Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Director Directorate of Women and Child Development, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector District- Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - The District Programme Officer (W C D), District- Jashpur (C.G.) 6 - The Child Development Project Officer (C D P O), Integrated Child Development Project Tapkara-2, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 7 - The Child Development Project Officer (C D P O), Integrated Child Development Project Farasabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Vikash Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents / State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge JUDGMENT ON BOARD Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05 .0 8 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Vikash Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) 3 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants / writ petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.4131 of 2026 (Smt. Ramleela Bhagat & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/ appellants herein has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy in accordance with the guidelines dated 02.04.2008. 3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that appellants / writ petitioners were duly appointed to the post of Anganwadi Sahayika / Karyakarta in rural areas by the formal order of Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Janpad Panchayat, after due consideration and approval in the meeting of Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Committee of the Janpad Panchyat. Subequently, in the year 2022, when the Department of Health launched the “Mitanin Programme” across the State to handle community health care, its official implementation guidelines titled “Mitanin Karyakram Kriyanvayan Hetu Samagra Sandarshika”, for selection of Mitanins. Relying upon this sovereign policy and clear promise of the State, the appellants took up the additional 24/7 voluntary, incentive-based, non-salaried role of ‘Mitanin’ along with their primary duties. On 02.12.2024, the Directorare of WCD issued a parent directive alleging a conflict of holding “dual posts” and directing action against such women. Acting upon the same, the Project Officer, Integrated Child Develop Project 4 passed the orders dated 19.01.2026 and 20.01.2026, terminating the services of the writ petitioners / appellants herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioners / appellants herein have directly approached this Court by filing writ petition being WPS No.4131 of 2026, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.05.2026 with liberty to the writ petitioners to avail the remedy in accordance with the guidelines dated 02.04.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners / appellants. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India solely on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. It is contended that the impugned termination orders dated 19.01.2026 and 20.01.2026 are ex facie illegal, arbitrary and have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. According to the appellants, no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the termination orders, and therefore the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an appellate remedy. It is further submitted that the appellants had been working as Anganwadi Sahayikas for several years and had also been engaged as Mitanins under the Health Department scheme. The engagement as a Mitanin is purely voluntary and honorary in nature and does not amount to holding a regular civil post or employment. It is argued that the policy of the State itself 5 envisaged preference to Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Sahayikas for selection as Mitanins and, therefore, the allegation of holding dual posts is misconceived. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents is discriminatory as several similarly situated persons continue to function as both Anganwadi Workers/Sahayikas and Mitanins, whereas only the appellants have been singled out for termination. It is contended that the impugned action is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also argued that the existence of an alternative remedy is merely a rule of self-imposed restraint and not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Since the appellants had specifically pleaded violation of natural justice and arbitrariness, the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ petition on merits instead of relegating the appellants to the appellate remedy. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the matter be remanded for consideration on merits, or alternatively, the termination orders be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the appeal is devoid of merit. It is contended that Clause 11 of the Guidelines dated 02.04.2008 specifically provides a statutory remedy of appeal before the District Collector against an order relating to appointment or termination of an Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Assistant or Mini Anganwadi Worker. The appellants admittedly 6 did not avail the said efficacious statutory remedy before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned State counsel further submits that the exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy are not attracted in the present case. The competent authority had jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders, there is no challenge to the vires of any statutory provision or guideline, and there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly declined to entertain the writ petition by placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499, and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record 7. The principal challenge in the present appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy. Clause 11 of the Guidelines dated 02.04.2008 admittedly provides an appellate remedy before the District Collector against orders relating to termination of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Sahayikas. It is not disputed that the appellants did not avail such remedy before invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7 8. The contention of the appellants that the writ petition was maintainable on account of violation of the principles of natural justice also does not merit acceptance. A perusal of the impugned termination orders indicates that notices had been issued to the appellants calling for their explanation. The competent authority has specifically recorded that despite service of notice, the appellants failed to submit any reply. Thus, it cannot be said that the termination orders were passed without affording any opportunity whatsoever 9. It is well settled that although the rule of alternative remedy is one of discretion and not of jurisdiction, the High Court ordinarily refrains from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction where an effective statutory remedy is available. Departure from this rule is permissible only in exceptional cases, such as where the order is passed wholly without jurisdiction, where the vires of a statute is under challenge, or where there is a clear and demonstrable violation of the principles of natural justice. None of these exceptional circumstances is made out in the present case 10. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499, and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterating that where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, the writ court should ordinarily decline to entertain the petition. 8 11. The submissions advanced by the appellants regarding the nature of duties performed as Mitanins, the legality of the allegation of dual engagement, and the plea of discrimination involve disputed questions touching upon the merits of the termination orders. Such issues are open to consideration by the statutory appellate authority, and the learned Single Judge rightly refrained from adjudicating the same while relegating the appellants to the remedy provided under the Guidelines. 12. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present intra-court appeal. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. It is, however, observed that if the appellants avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the competent appellate authority, the same shall be considered and decided independently, on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made either in the order of the learned Single Judge or in this judgment. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra