1 CGHC010295422026 2026:CGHC:38972-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 801 of 2026 Smt. Sheetal Soni W/o Shri Onkar Soni Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakhram, Police Station Ratanpur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Women And Child Development Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur C. G. 2. Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 3. District Progaram Officer, Women And Child Development Bilaspur District Bilaspur C. G. 4. Sub Divisional Office (Revenue) Bilaspur District Bilaspur C. G. 5. Tahsildar Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. 6. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur C. G. 7. Program Officer Integrated Women And Child Development Project, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C. G. 8. Gram Panchayat Lakharam Through The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Lakharam Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur C.G. 9. Smt, Manju Yadav W/o Shri Arun Kumar Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station Ratanpur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.09.07 11:01:52 +0530 2 10. Smt, Sukh Bai Kewat W/o Shri Divendra Kumar Kewat Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. 11. Smt, Rajani Yadav W/o Shri Navneet Kumar Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. 12. Smt, Lata Dewangan W/o Shri Ramanuj Dewangan Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. 13. Smt, Arati Kewat W/o Shri Durga Prasad Kewat Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. 14. Smt, Neeti Kewat W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Kewat Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. 15. Smt, Chandra Kali Sarthi W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Sarthi Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. 16. Smt, Karuna Verma W/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. 17. Smt, Payal Verma W/o Shri Shivchand Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. 18. Smt, Premlata Yadav W/o Shri Ram Krishna Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhadui, Deputy Advocate General. 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03 .09.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7565 of 2023 (Smt. Sheetal Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition preferred by appellant/writ petitioner herein was came to be dismissed at motion stage. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that respondent No. 7 issued an advertisement dated 09.09.2022 under the Department of Women & Child Development inviting applications for filling up the vacant posts of Staff Anganbadi Worker and Anganbadi Assistant. It is submitted that, as specifically stipulated in the advertisement, the selection and appointment to the advertised posts were to be made in accordance with the directions/circular dated 02.04.2008 issued by respondent No. 1. Pursuant thereto, the appellant submitted her application for appointment to the post of Anganbadi 4 Assistant at Anganbadi Centre No. 3, Lakhram, Gram Panchayat Lakhram. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that, for the aforesaid post, the appellant along with ten other candidates belonging to village Lakhram submitted their applications before the competent authority. Thereafter, a list of eligible candidates was published, wherein the appellant secured 48.60% marks, whereas respondent No. 17 secured 49.60% marks. It is contended that the appellant, on 10.02.2023, submitted a representation before the concerned authority seeking grant of six additional marks admissible to a member of a Below Poverty Line (BPL) family under the applicable scheme/circular. He also contended that the appellant had, along with her application, produced her Middle School Certificate evidencing her having studied at the Scheduled Tribe Girls School, Birda, an institution functioning under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department of the State Government. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid educational qualification entitled the appellant to the additional marks prescribed under the circular dated 02.04.2008. It is therefore urged that the claim of the appellant for the additional marks was required to be duly considered before finalising the selection. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, without considering the representation dated 10.02.2023 and without granting the appellant the marks to which she was entitled under the applicable circular, the concerned authority proceeded to pass the appointment 5 order dated 03.05.2023 in favour of respondent No. 17 for the post of Anganbadi Assistant at Anganbadi Centre No. 3, Lakhram. It is argued that the appointment was thus made without properly applying the criteria prescribed under the circular dated 02.04.2008. 6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was entitled to six additional marks on account of her belonging to a BPL family and three additional marks on account of having studied in the Scheduled Tribe Girls School, Birda. If such marks had been duly awarded and her candidature assessed in accordance with the prescribed criteria, the appellant would have stood higher in merit and would have been entitled to appointment to the post in question. The failure of the authorities to consider the appellant's claim and supporting documents has, according to learned counsel, materially prejudiced her candidature. He also submits that the advertisement dated 09.09.2022 itself expressly provided that the appointment process would be undertaken in accordance with the circular/directions dated 02.04.2008. Consequently, the authorities were bound to adhere to the criteria and procedure prescribed therein. It is contended that the appointment order dated 03.05.2023 was passed in disregard of the said circular and, therefore, could not have been sustained. 7. Another submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the appointment order was passed by an authority lacking the requisite jurisdiction. Referring to the circular dated 02.04.2008, learned counsel submits that, in respect of the post of Anganbadi Assistant, the 6 competent appointing authority was the concerned Janpad Panchayat and not respondent No. 7. On this ground also, it is urged that the appointment order dated 03.05.2023 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant had challenged the appointment order by filing WPS No. 7565 of 2023 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. However, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 18.06.2026, dismissed the writ petition without properly appreciating the effect of the circular dated 02.04.2008, the appellant's entitlement to additional marks and the issue relating to the competence of the authority which passed the appointment order. 9. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the selection process was required to be conducted strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the circular dated 02.04.2008, and that the appellant's claim for additional marks could not have been ignored without due consideration. Learned counsel submits that the impugned appointment was consequently vitiated by non-compliance with the prescribed selection criteria as well as by the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the authority passing the appointment order. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the manner in which the appellant's claim was dealt with, despite her having produced the relevant documents and having specifically sought consideration of the additional marks before finalisation of the selection, 7 demonstrates arbitrariness and non-application of mind on the part of the authorities. It is contended that the action of the concerned authority is contrary to the applicable circular and the terms of the advertisement and has resulted in an illegal denial of appointment to the appellant. On these submissions, learned counsel prays that the impugned order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 7565 of 2023, as well as the appointment order dated 03.05.2023, be set aside and appropriate consequential relief be granted in favour of the appellant. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge has considered the entire controversy in its proper perspective and, upon examination of the documents placed on record, has rightly dismissed the writ petition at the motion stage. It is contended that the appellant was required to establish her entitlement to the additional marks in accordance with the Circular dated 02.04.2008 and to produce the requisite documents in support of her claim within the prescribed selection process. The appellant, however, failed to furnish any documentary proof along with her application demonstrating that she belonged to the BPL category. The certificate subsequently relied upon by her, issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Lakhram, did not establish her entitlement to six bonus marks under the said Circular. 12. Learned State counsel further submits that the claim of the appellant for three additional marks on account of having studied in a 8 school run by the Tribal Department was also rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge, as neither the application form nor the progress report produced by the appellant established that she had passed Class VIII from a Kanya Ashram run by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department, as contemplated under the Circular dated 02.04.2008. It is also pointed out that the appellant did not raise such a claim while submitting her objections before the competent authority on 22.02.2023. The learned Single Judge, therefore, committed no error in holding that the documents relied upon by the appellant did not establish her entitlement to the additional marks. 13. With regard to the challenge to the competence of respondent No.7 to issue the appointment order, learned State counsel submits that the appointment order dated 03.05.2023 was issued only after completion of the prescribed selection procedure and approval of the select list by the competent authority/Selection Committee. The appellant has not placed any material on record to establish that the select list had not been approved by the competent authority or the concerned Janpad Panchayat, Bilha. The appointment order, being consequential to the selection process, could not, therefore, be treated as an order passed without jurisdiction merely because it was issued by respondent No. 7. It is accordingly submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge call for no interference in the intra-Court appeal. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 9 material available on record, including the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 15. The principal grievance of the appellant is that she was entitled to six bonus marks on account of her being a member of a BPL family and three bonus marks on account of having passed Middle School from an institution contemplated under the Circular dated 02.04.2008, and that non-grant of such marks resulted in her being placed below respondent No. 17 in the merit list. 16. From a perusal of the Circular dated 02.04.2008, it appears that six bonus marks are contemplated for female candidates belonging to the BPL category and three bonus marks for candidates who have passed Middle School from an Ashram run by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department. The entitlement to such bonus marks, however, has to be established by the candidate by producing the requisite supporting material in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 17. In the present case, the learned Single Judge, upon examining the application submitted by the appellant, recorded a categorical finding that no document or certificate had been enclosed with the application to establish that the appellant belonged to the BPL category. The certificate subsequently relied upon by the appellant, issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Lakhram, also did not establish the fact that she was a member of the BPL category. The tabular chart prepared by the authorities while inviting objections/claims also supported the 10 aforesaid finding. We find no material on record which would persuade us to take a different view. 18. So far as the claim for three additional marks on account of having studied in a school run by the Tribal Department is concerned, the material produced by the appellant merely indicates that she had passed Class VIII from a school run by the Tribal Department. The learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that neither the application form nor the progress report relied upon by the appellant establishes that she had passed Class VIII from a Kanya Ashram run by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department, which was the specific requirement for grant of the aforesaid bonus marks under the Circular dated 02.04.2008. The distinction between having studied in a school run by the Tribal Department and having passed Middle School from a Kanya Ashram contemplated under the Circular cannot be overlooked. 19. We also find substance in the submission of the learned State counsel that the appellant did not raise her claim for the aforesaid three additional marks at the appropriate stage of submitting objections. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellant did not raise such a claim while submitting her objections on 22.02.2023. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot, merely on the basis of the documents subsequently relied upon, seek to reopen the completed selection process without first establishing a clear entitlement under the governing Circular. 11 20. The further contention of the appellant that respondent No. 7 lacked jurisdiction to issue the appointment order also does not merit acceptance. The learned Single Judge has specifically noticed that the appellant failed to place on record any material demonstrating that the select list had not been approved by the competent Selection Committee or the concerned Janpad Panchayat, Bilha. The appointment order dated 03.05.2023 was issued subsequent to completion of the selection procedure. In the absence of any material showing that the selection itself was not approved by the competent authority, the mere issuance of the consequential appointment order by respondent No. 7 cannot, by itself, render the appointment void for want of jurisdiction. 21. The contention that the authorities acted in violation of the Circular dated 02.04.2008 is also not borne out from the material available on record. The advertisement itself required the selection process to be undertaken in accordance with the said Circular. The appellant was accordingly required to establish her entitlement to the bonus marks in terms of the conditions prescribed therein. Since the appellant failed to establish her entitlement to the six bonus marks under the BPL category and the three bonus marks relating to the prescribed educational qualification, no illegality can be attributed to the authorities in not awarding such marks. 22. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction in an intra-Court appeal, interference is warranted only where the order of the learned 12 Single Judge suffers from an error of law, perversity or failure to consider the material aspects of the matter. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has considered the relevant provisions of the Circular dated 02.04.2008, the documents relied upon by the appellant, the issue regarding grant of bonus marks and the challenge to the competence of the authority issuing the appointment order. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based upon the material available on record and cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to law. 23. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the selection and appointment in question and has rightly dismissed WPS No. 7565 of 2023 at the motion stage. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the order dated 18.06.2026 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its intra-Court appellate jurisdiction. 24. Consequently, the present writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7565 of 2023 is affirmed. 25. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan