1 2026:CGHC:2352 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2062 of 2023 1 - Smt. Rosan Giri W/o Shri Raju Giri, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Narkalo, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Woman And Child Development, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The District Project Office, Unified Woman And Child Development, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Project Officer, Unified Woman And Child Development Project Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat , Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Vandana Giri W/o Shri Satyendra Giri Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Narkalo , Tahsil - Bhaiyathan , Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Manas Vajpai, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Adarsh Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/01/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ / or writs/order/or orders / to quashed the order dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondent no. 4, whereby the appointment of the petitioner, as a Anganbadi Karyakarta, is cancelled without holding enquiry in accordance with law, and further be pleased to set-aside the appointment of the respondent no. 5, on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta made by the impugned order dated 15.09.2022, (Annexure P/1), on cancellation of appointment of petitioner, as Anganbadi Karyakarta, in the ends of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit 3 and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.4 An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.), whereby respondent No. 4 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Anganbadi Worker at Anganbadi Centre, Narkalo Ahirpara, Janpad Panchayat, Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, and, in place of the petitioner, directed the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Anganbadi Worker on the basis of the order dated 04.04.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3824/2012. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and without conducting any inquiry into the matter, despite specific directions issued by this Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (S) No. 3824/2012 vide order dated 04.04.2022. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the settled principles of law, inasmuch as the respondent authorities, without conducting any enquiry into the matter, arbitrarily cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and illegally appointed respondent No. 5 in her 4 place. It is further contended that the said action has been taken in complete violation of the prescribed procedure governing the removal of an Aanganbadi Karyakarta as laid down under the applicable circulars and rules. The learned counsel submits that the respondent State authorities have mechanically cancelled the petitioner’s appointment solely on the basis of an order passed by this Hon’ble High Court, without independent application of mind, which renders the impugned order unsustainable in law. It is also urged that the petitioner has been continuously holding the post of Aanganbadi Worker since 01.08.2012 and, therefore, could not have been removed from service without conducting a proper enquiry. The order of removal being penal in nature and entailing serious civil consequences, the same could not have been passed without holding a lawful enquiry in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure. The learned counsel further reserves liberty to raise any other relevant grounds at the time of motion and final hearing of the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are wholly misconceived, baseless, and liable to be rejected at the very threshold. It is emphatically denied that the impugned order dated 15.09.2022 is illegal, erroneous, or contrary to law. The record unequivocally establishes that the petitioner’s appointment dated 01.08.2012 was merely consequential to the earlier cancellation of the appointment of the answering respondent, 5 which cancellation was subsequently set aside by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 3824/2012 vide order dated 04.04.2022, wherein the State authorities were specifically directed to conduct a proper enquiry and take a final decision in accordance with law. In faithful compliance with the said judicial directions, a due and lawful enquiry was conducted by the competent authority after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and after thorough verification of the relevant records, which culminated in the passing of the impugned order dated 15.09.2022, whereby the answering respondent was found eligible and was duly appointed. Therefore, the allegation that no enquiry was conducted or that the prescribed procedure was not followed is factually incorrect and contrary to the material available on record. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any vested or indefeasible right to continue on the post merely on the basis of her appointment dated 01.08.2012, as such appointment automatically lost its legal sanctity once the earlier cancellation of the answering respondent’s appointment was set aside by this Hon’ble Court. The impugned order is not penal in nature but is a corrective administrative action undertaken to restore the rightful appointment of the answering respondent in compliance with judicial directions. Mere long continuance of the petitioner on the post does not create any equity or enforceable right in her favour, as such continuance was always subject to the final outcome of the pending litigation. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is 6 contended that all the grounds raised by the petitioner are devoid of merit, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed outright. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From a careful perusal of the impugned order, it clearly emerges that the same has been passed without conducting any enquiry whatsoever and in complete contravention of the statutory rules and guidelines governing appointment to and removal from the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta. The record further reveals that the petitioner has been constrained to run from pillar to post since the year 2011 in pursuit of justice; however, despite repeated directions issued by this Court in various writ petitions as well as writ appeals, specifically mandating the concerned respondent authorities to conduct a proper enquiry in the matter, no such enquiry has been undertaken till date, nor has any reasoned order been passed by the competent authority duly authorised to do so, thereby rendering the impugned action arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 15.09.2022 is hereby set aside, and the parties are relegated to the concerned respondent authorities, namely the concerned Collector, for fresh consideration of the matter. While deciding the same, the concerned Collector shall duly take into account the period consumed by both the petitioner as well as the respondents before the High Court and shall adjudicate the matter 7 on its own merits, without being influenced in any manner by the delay attributable to either of the parties. The concerned Collector is further directed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording due and proper opportunity to all the parties to lead evidence, and thereafter to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. 8. With this observation and direction the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat