1 CGHC010187492018 2026:CGHC:36834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4283 of 2018 1 - Smt. Sandhya Rajwade W/o Shri Manohar Lal Rajwade Aged About 33 Years Caste - Rajwar (Nontribal), Presently Residing At Village Bhandargaon, Gram Panchayat Pandridand, Janpad Panchayat Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Commissioner, Surguja Division (Ambikapur) District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Project Officer, Integrated Women And Child Development Department, Janpad Panchayat Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3 And 4 Are Respondents In Order Dated 04.06.2018), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Pankin Kanwar, W/o Shri Jatashankar Kanwar, Caste Kanwar (Tribal), R/o Village Bhandargaon, Gram Panchayat Pandridand, Janpad Panchayat Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Appellant), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner/s : Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Shishir Dixit, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Ananya Chaterjee, Advocate holding the brief of Shri R.R. Soni, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set-aside the order dated 04.06.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, whereby the appointment order of the petitioner dated 30.12.2008 has been set-aside. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work in the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta for the Village Bhandargaon. 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner applied for the post of Mini Anganbadi Karyakarta at Gram Panchayat Bhandargaon, Tahsil Udaypur, pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.4.2008. He would contend that the petitioner, respondent No.5 and other eligible candidates submitted their application forms. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, after due scrutiny, an order of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner on 30.12.2008, which was challenged by respondent No.5 by filing an appeal before the Collector. He would contend that the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 was dismissed, and subsequently, the revision preferred against the said order was allowed by the 3 Commissioner vide order dated 4.6.2018. He would argue that the revision preferred by respondent No.5 was allowed on the ground that the petitioner was not a resident of Gram Panchayat Bhandargaon at the relevant time. He would submit that a direction was issued to the concerned Tehsildar to enquire into the matter and submit a report. He would submit that the Tehsildar categorically held in his report that, in the year 2007-08, the petitioner was a resident of village Bhandargaon and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Commissioner is perverse. He would also submit that the petitioner had submitted sufficient documents along with the application form to demonstrate that he was a resident of Gram Panchayat Bhandargaon, but those documents were discarded by the said authority. He would pray for allowing the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 would submit that the petitioner was not a resident of Gram Panchayat Bhandargaon and, therefore, the Commissioner allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.5. She would submit that the petitioner could not submit the relevant documents relating to his place of residence along with the application form, and that was the reason why the Commissioner allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.5. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the Tehsildar conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the effect that the petitioner was a resident of village Bhandargaon. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. The only issue involved in the present case is whether the petitioner was a resident of village Bhandargaon on the date of submission of the application. Perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner had submitted a certificate issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat along with her application form, which was treated as a valid document by the Committee, and an order of appointment was accordingly issued in her favour. The appeal preferred by respondent No.5 was dismissed by the Collector, but the Commissioner, ignoring the documents relating to the petitioner's residence, allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.5. This Court, vide order dated 27.4.2026, directed the concerned Tehsildar to submit a report with regard to the petitioner's place of residence. The Tehsildar, who is the competent authority to issue a domicile certificate, after conducting due enquiry, concluded that, on the date of submission of the application, the petitioner was a resident of Gram Panchayat Bhandargaon. 7. Having considered the facts of the present case and the report submitted by the Tehsildar dated 20.5.2026, in my opinion, the Commissioner committed an error of law in discarding the domicile certificate issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat Bhandargaon. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the order dated 4.6.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, is hereby set aside. 5 9. It is informed that the petitioner is still working. Therefore, the interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi