1 CGHC010206332022 2026:CGHC:39460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4590 of 2022  Bamleshwari Chouhan D/o Gurudev Chouhan Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bataupali (B), Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Child And Women Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Upper Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Camp Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. Programme Officer Integrated Child And Women Development Department, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. Kekti Sidar D/o Alekhram Sidar W/o Ugrasen Sidar, R/o Village Bataupali (B), Tahsil Sarangarh,district Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Now R/o Village Lamkeni, Post Singhanpur, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Smt. Raveena, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, P.L. For Respondent No. 6 : Ms. Sangeeta Kaushik, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 09.09.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and be pleased to set-aside the order dated 20-05-2022 (Annexure P-3) issued by the respondent The petitioner most humbly prays for grant of the following relief/s before this Hon'ble Court :- 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and be pleased to set-aside the order dated 20-05-2022 (Annexure P-3) issued by the respondent no. 2 and also set aside order dated 07/06/2022 (Annexure P-5)issued by the respondent no. 4. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order not to disturb the petitioner and allow the petitioner to work as Angan Badi Worker at Village Bataupali (B), Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Centre Bataupali, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh vide order dated 10.10.2017. The appointment of petitioner was challenged by the respondent No. 6 before Collector, Raigarh in appeal inter-alia on the ground that petitioner was wrongly granted three additional marks for having passed the Classes IX and X. Collector, Raigarh allowed the appeal vide order dated 05.06.2018 and canceled the 3 appointment of petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner preferred appeal before Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division which was dismissed vide order dated 20.05.2022. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was meritorious having secured the first position in the merit list and was rightly appointed to the afore-stated post but the Collector, Raigarh erroneously deducted three marks granted to the petitioner and such finding was maintained by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division in appeal. She prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that petitioner secured 55.24 marks whereas respondent No. 6 secured 54.64 marks, however, the petitioner was erroneously awarded three marks for acquiring Class IX and X qualifications, despite there being no such provision in the advertisement. They further submit that Collector, Raigarh detected this anomaly in the appeal and canceled the appointment of the petitioner and Additional Commissioner also maintained such finding, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Admittedly, petitioner was placed at first position in merit list having secured 55.24 marks and appointment order was issued in 4 her favor. Respondent No. 6, who secured 54.64 marks challenged the appointment of petitioner. It is true that there is no such provision of awarding three additional marks for acquiring Class IX and X qualifications and inadvertently, petitioner was awarded three additional marks. 7) Collector, Raigarh detected this anomaly and allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 6 vide order dated 05.06.2018 and canceled the appointment of petitioner. Subsequently, respondent No. 6 has been appointed to the said post. Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur has also maintained such finding in order dated 20.05.2022. 8) In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, no case is made out to interfere with the orders impugned. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y A Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.10 14:16:47 +0530