Smt. Niti Kumari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Smt. Deepika Bai, W/o. Naaresh Kumar R/o. Village Chandrivan, Navagaon, Tghsil Doundi Lohara, District Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFJTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDMUS AND CERTIORARY AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRTTS AND DIRECTION 1 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP^ No.4630 of 2007 PETITIONER Smt. Niti Kumari -Versus- RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh & others Present Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. ORAL ORDER (6-11-2013)

The petitioner was appointed as Aangan Badi Sahayika, Gram Panchayat ^. r|c|i<T|c| by order passed by the Janpad Panchayat, Dondilohara on 21.8.2006. On receiving some complaints about irregularities in appointment s[. on the post of Aangan Badi Sahayika, the concerned Collector directed for Janpad Panchayat Dondilohara enquiry, pursuant cancelled the petitioner's appointment for the reason that the petitioner's name is not included in the voter list of the village. Complaining that her the CEO, thereto, appointment has been cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing, in which vide order dated the petitioner preferred WP(S) No. 1526/2007, 16.3.2007, this Court directed the concerned Collector to pass appropriate order afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. *'

By the present impugned order passed by the District Programme Officer (Woman and Child Development), District Durg on 22.6.2007, the petitioner's appdintment has been cancelled on the ground that respondent No.5 Smt. is more qualified than the petitioner, therefore, she has been Deepika Bai appointed and the petitioner's appointment has been cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of the Court to the circular dated 12.12.2005 laying down norms and procedure for appointment of Aangan Badi Sahayika. He would submit that qualification is not the only criteria and when considered in the light of State Government's circular, the petitioher was entitled for appointment. '

On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer made in •^. ./ ^ the writ petition and would submit that when qualified candidates are available, the petitioner, who is only 5th standard pass, could not have been appointed.

Under the State Government's circular dated 12.12.2005 laying down norms for appointment of Aangan Badi Sahayika, order of preference has been provided in para-5 & 6 thereof.

The first stage of preference provides that widow/destitute woman shall be preferred and thereafter woman belonging to Below Poverty Line and belonging to SC/ST community shall be granted preference. In the next stage of preference, it is mentioned that the candidates having 8th standard pass shall be preferred and if such candidates are not available, higher secondary pass candidates can also be considered. Apart from this, also provided in para-1 of the circular that candidates should be voter of the concerned Gram Panchayat.

In the case in hand, the first order of cancellation of appointment was on the ground that the name of the petitioner is not included in the voter list of the concerned Gram Panchayat. However, when the matter was remitted back by this Court, the Collector has now supported the order of cancellation of appointment on different ground by saying that respondent No.5 being 8th standard pass is more qualified than the petitioner, who is only 5th standard pass. The subsequent order i.e. the impugned order impliedly suggests that the petitioner's name is included in the voter list of the Gram Panchayat because the said ground has not been mentioned in the order. Even otherwise, the petitioner has submitted a copy of the voter list of concerned *• Gram Panchayat as Annexure-P/5 wherein her name is mentioned at S. No.1055.

The reason for cancellation of the petitioner's appointment now sought to be relied on by the respondent Collector is not substantial because under the circular issued by the State Government preference at the first instance is to be accorded to a woman belonging to BPL family. The preference on the basis of qualification is the next stage of preference but when candidate belonging to BPL family is available, she has to be accorded preference because the very object and purpose of appointment of Aangan Badi the widow/deserted Worker/Sahayika is to make some avenues for woman/BPL family to sustain their livelihood and further that they are \available in the village for supervising the work entrusted to Aangan Badi ^ Sahayika.

Thus, keeping in view the parameters of circular dated 12.12.2005, petitioner appears to be eligible for appointment after according preference on the basis that she is member of BPL family. Respondent No.5 Smt. Deepika Bai is not appearing before this Court despite service of notice to claim that she also belongs to BPL family. Therefore, there is nothing on record to indicate that respondent No.5 alone was entitled to be appointed.