Smt. Gulapati v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Smt. Rajanti widow of Late Shri Ramlal, Resident Village Rampur, Janpad Panchayat Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.). S s WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22'6 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION ETC. XI-HC-78 3^ '^l^ld'4, Eprild'IS, RldKiy / w. / <s) >^>. ^?/^'^ ^ TT97 ••••••"•••••••••••••^T 200 *<1*1MI giWd 341^!*iy^cb(yi^si^<T) gTf^r^rfN^ (iqTan^TOTNi SRiTWHfStrsn^T 9-2-2007 ^rafepfrr TTtRff ff te^t'i^RZTC ^srf^lTSTRRT A^. ^ Mr. V.K.Pandey, counsel f^rthe petitionere. Mr. V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyi None appears for other resbondents. Advocate General with Mr. >r for the State/respondents. With the consent of leame|d counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally and dispos^d of. Common order dictated in 1|Vrit Petition (S.) No.796 of 2007 in open Court, passed separately. Sd/- SatishK. Judge •A-. Gopal P.T.O. i'BncAmBiiB's1^:^ AT-f^ - <.7^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.796 OF 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Kateshwari versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.797 OF 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Gulapati versus Respondente : State of Chhattisgarh and others WRITPETITION (S.l N0.799 OF 2007 Pet'rtioner : Smt. Urmila versus Resoondents : SteiteofChhattisgarhandothers WRIT PETITION (S.l 3.800 OF 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Kiran Devi versus Respondents : State of ChhatUsgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.801 OF 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Sheela Bai versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others -^ .^ WRIT PETITION (S.t N0.802 OF 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Chandrakali versus Resoondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others WRFT PETITION (S.t N0.803 OF 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Mamta Patet versus Respondents : StateofChhattisgarhandothers WRIT PETmON (S.l N0.804 OF 2007 Petitioner : Mst. Saroj Jaiswal versus Respondente : State of Chhattisgarh and others VWIT PETITION (S.l N0^05 OF 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Shivmati versus Resoondents : StateofChhatGsgarhandothers WRFT PETITION (S.l N0.806 OF 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Sushma Singh versus Respondents : StateofChhattisgarhandothers Present : Mr.V.K.Pandey.counselforthepetiUoners. Mr. V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. None appears for other respondente. ^ ORDER (Passed on 9th Day of February, 2007) The common questton of law involved in the present writ petitions is as to whether the District Collector has power to appoint Anganbadi Workers. The facts of the writ petitions are also similar. Thus, the present writ petitfons are being clubbed together and being consjdered and decided by a common order.

2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners along with others submitted their applicatlons for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Workers at various places in Ambikapur, District Surguja. The Panchayat, on the basis of a resolution, prepared a panel. The said panel was examined by the Project OfRcer, Woman and Child Development, Ambikapur, District Surguja and was placed before the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pratappur, who approved the list of candidates for appointment and sent the entire records to the Collector, Ambfkapur, District Surguja. The District Programme OfRcer, Woman and Child Development Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja, under the order of the Collector, issued an appointment order on 18.1-2007 (P-1).

3. The main contentton of Mr. V.K.Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the impugned appointment ordef dated 18-1-2007 (P-1), wherein the pefitioners did not find ptace, was passed by an incompetent officer as neither the Collector nor the District Programme Officer, Woman and Child Devetopment •(te't)i?i'>i J6A 96'6'9Z <felb^/ZS/e/96/yi- / U-h^yi.^lte/tblktb lifc l* y l«>lt> bh Ita^Jh 'l^ue Q^SS: l^j&y ^fe jteiiteyiaHt tth (lepcqtitfc iji-ibuiiiie 1 -yS!& -bhy,, -: jspun se speej qs&pejcj eAqpen y> lueiuiueAOg) 'tueuipedsa psnssi 9661-9-ZZ P9»®P^inoijp sifl y> yed IUBASISJ siu. tusuido|3Asa P1140 pus ueiuoAft sin Aq 'S sqi uioy |BAojdde uo jaoyio suiuiejBojd iusuido|8Asa piiyo p&iusouoo •|esodojd sifl Aq psssed sq ueo J3pjo lusuquiodde sqi 't|nB>sp u| •jopeitoo jo idjsosj uo S^SSM sajift y> poyad e uiiffl^ ^sp^o tusuuiuiodde sqi ssed 'Q esed ui japunsjeyM pinoys teAeqaued peduep si|i iei|i pspiAojd si ^ "9661.-S-ZZ P®»BPjeinojp jeiijes sifl p uogfinuituoo ui lueuuiueAog sifl '9661 A} psnssi S8M 9661-01-6Z PaiGP Jefnojp sjoiu suo 'jeyeejsqi •S'LZ pafsp Jeinojio .i8i|jea 01 sja(sj oooz't-9 paiBp .leinojio pies 8i)i •tusuuuiodde joi tusiuiusAog sifl ^0 jeinajio jai|jee sifi p uoBenusuoo ui si jeinoip si4i teift oooz-t-9 P® P jeinoiio syi ui pspiAOJd 'sesje ueqjn ui teAeyoued jeBe|M/Aij|edj3!un|ft|/uoi»ejo(iioo jsifljry si i| ledraiunifti psiuaouoo sifl Aq pue seeiie |ejru uj stEABiioued peduer Aq SBSijAeyes pue SJSHIOM ipequeBuv y> lusuquiodde j&( sspiAOJd jeinojp pies siu 'ysspejd eAi)pew y> IUSIUIUSAOQ 'tuauvedsQ luetudo|SAsa PIMO pue ueiuo/y\ sifl Aq penssi OOOZ-l-9 PsiGp jeinaiio •()• e uo pa||SJ Sjsuomsd sifl jo^ Suuesdde issunoo p^uJe^^ ipequeBuv tuiodde 01 tusisdiuoo jndesiiquiv 'tusuiyedsa •se)(!Aei|es/sjs^ioAA ta; SlB. ^J. ^ Bhlb.h ShUln cy g IM, He ^ lafett fiiS 1 ^ i»^y * ^11" |?<y »&K> * aith^ u&>(j>». uy'&y j^fe jKiifcyiaHL Ah ^ ys thin i->u{; -9» Ih-iaj hjny IXIB Uhlbh bht-ln ^ JPtt'J?!* ^lbMtllf „- ^ ^U£ ^j. uyiftn i^py !*y >**y late |t twuMu I ^ ^lt ^y <4b jUhibh yifc/ityajui l"|j>ir> Usfet^le .(^(a sf. y&^lt& fcS ^kk/liky. &kb u^t.t'.i* .(< f- py^y ^ jiei'&yia& ^i i|iejBifep6 ^•it.t.irite fijiiye i^i"(.i?yh is^ H'14'y mfe vy^ las 9690 'B. 'b.lt'y ^h uy&.-tt Ub(?-hP> tb l>lh.y 96-SO'^Z ^lt-y g-OS/S6/e-8Z/£-8 th2i.-<6Ut& feh l<fe Itllt.y l uy1?y y> jipi(t>yiau> A&. jlsyib^ib (^lbt.ltllf l^ji&te iuin(i?yh ib|* i* y v> dt^ivh -^&±B; —teby,, -: jspun se spesj ysepejd eAypeifti y> tusuiujsAoo 'tusiuyedsa psnssi 9661-01^-62 P®iepjeinojp ei|»p s(jed tueASfaj SL|J. tusiudo|eAsa Pliyo pue UBIUOM sifl ^q •9 .-: ^ ^tUn ^y pyiftn li^UE: bil^ ^ Jafefe ^ B^Ey. ^ jleicb)yis& rii jKpsfejdife (p'lbt-i^iiB ye al ^ifc w.i^y BJS ^iiii ^» ^y ff-itfii ^LIEI ^ ^i 1MS 1-ftlR bEil^ Jaltt-tBU^ ^ j|l^Ue fiyS±& Ub^hR ^ jycfcy jsife rii ipgjh •B^£ug ^fc PMM Mib/lifciyUl Uib/hlty i'dtb iilg)A& J^ fe^ ^316. & <ife .|,Pt? h Ph^l" ^ jjK^ layiUi. jate Utfelglle ^ l^l&y ^fc l|eiifeiyiait ^. ;y ^ ifelt iteiy i?jny aiS ^H-lft JSte)Bifejiltfe ^ibuitiie ^ jaH^ BS laiB; | I 96S"9t 4>.l(-y 'zee/yi-^K'fiA-h/ frh^^iiR/iyiia Eifei'i<M'S) ?hn f^ ^tgf^T tg TRara iira 'gt^r 'W^tf? 4 Pt'^fi'd 3IT^?I WHTfel q?? {^ ^IT^ 1 ?Tft 'vFPR TEirag ^ §R[^i aralSt ^f Pl^Rd wJEft ^'pfa t at 't'c'l+c'! ^ aii^tef ^ 3ii'<iri6ii4l ^ f^rar ^ 3 'uirar ^pfecifeif ^ ^rerRwtaif qft Pi^Rri to?re yRfllui-ii aiBRii^ gre ^t "n ^ift i" ^NISRT ws

7. The relevant part of the circular dated 6-1-2000 issued by ttie Woman and Child Development Department, Govemment of Madhya Pradesh reads as under :- "ftro:- TR'f:- •ifl'llstl-il qiritRrfsiF T?? ''iTS'rfiRifsif qft f?qf^a i ^H R»)1<1 qil TR **1 V5 8-3/95/50 f^iR; 27.05.1996 'svii •aw^ gre f^pifo fcrar ipiT t f^ 3II''I'1^I^I q^pfegfeff T^ ^TgTRt?5R(if l^ f\^Rf ^ aiRrw; wftiii ^ff 4 uFpr? ^t'iidf ^t ? ws^t ^ 4 wgfSRT ••TIR 1?r«m/'?T^? 4iRi<t>i/7pR irarad W t i 31t'<t'lE|l.^ qiTfeclfaff ^ ''(Rltorf -^ ft^a gR[ T^ 4' ^t*-T Pi^Rii ^H^ft aff^r y-ttiRd f^ ii^ ai-"

8. On pemsal of the said circulars (supra), it is evident Ihat in case of delay caused by the Janpad Panchayat in issuing appointment order within a period of three weeks from the recelpt of a proposa!, the Child Development Programme Officer, on approval by the Colleetor, can pass the appointment order. '(^

9. In the present case, it appears that the impugned appointment order was passed by the Disfrict Programme Officer, Woman and Chllcf Development Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja on approval by the Coltector. The order is accordingty passed by a competent ofRcer.

10. With regard to other allegations, e Anganbadi Workers are admittedly employees of the Panchayats as their appointmente are made by the Janpad Panchayats on proposal made by the concemed Gram Panchayats.

11. The terms and conditions of the services of the petitioners are govemed by the Madhya Pradesh/ChhaUsgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam,

1993. The Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rutes, 1^5 (henceforth 'the Rules, 1995'), framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 95 read with Section 91 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 OMo.1 of 1994) provides for appeal or revision. Rule 3(b) of the Rules, 1^5 clearty provides ttiat in the case of an order passed by the Collector under any provision ofthe Act or rules or bye laws made thereunder to the Commissioner. The word "Commissioner" in the Rules, '\935 has been subsUtuted by the words "Director of Panchayat" by a notification dated 13-5-2<X)3 passed in exercise of the powere conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 95 read with Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (No.1 of 1994). Thus, fte appeal against any order passed by the Collector is maintainabte before the Direstor of Panchayat, Govemment of Chhattisgarh. ^

12. The petitioners statutory attemative remedy available by way of statutory appeal under Rute 3 of the Rules, 1995 to the Director of Panchayat, Govemment of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners, without exercising of that alternatwe remedy of statutory appeal, have approached this Court directly.

13. It is well settted principle of law that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the ConstNution of Indta, -< should refrain from entertaining a writ petition on the ground of availability of an altemative remedy, except in cases where the Court or the Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of a fundamental right or if there has been a violation of principles of natural justice. (See State ofH.P. and offters vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and another, Sanjana M. Wig ffSs) vs. Hmdustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., L.K. Venna vs. HMT Ltd. and anotte?3 and A.P. Foods vs.S. Samuel and others^.

14. Applying settled position of law to the facts of the present cases, Uiere is no challenge of the competence of ttie Tribunal/Authority or that principles of natural JusUce have not been followed or this is a case of infringement of fundamental right or any provision of ttie law. If there is any other ground available, the petitionere are at liberty to avail statutory appeals.

15. Thus, the writ petftions are dismissed as being not maintainable in view of availability of effective statutory appellate forum. In the event, an appeal is fried befbre the appellate authority, this order shall not come in the way of the disposal of the appeal in accordance withlaw. No order as to costs.

16. A copy of this order be ptaced on ftie record of the connected writ petitions. — — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 2 3 4