Smt. Phool Kunwar W/o Shri Hemlal Mahilange Aged About 50 Years By Caste v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development And Welfare
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.19 15:20:05 +0530 2025:CGHC:41415 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6481 of 2021 Smt. Phool Kunwar W/o Shri Hemlal Mahilange Aged About 50 Years By Caste Satnami, R/o Village Amandula, Block Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development And Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 4. The Project Officer Women And Child Development, Janpad Panchayat Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 5. President Women And Child Development, Janpad Panchayat Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 6. Yamuna Bai @ Jamunna Bai D/o Ashwapati Beer Vikram Singh R/o Village Amandula, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State For Respondent No. 3 For Respondent No. 6
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside dated 16.09.2021& 04.09.2021(Annexure P/1), passed by impugned order the 2 respondent no. 3 (Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Malkharouda), consequently set-aside the appointment order of respondent no. 6 in the post of Anganbadi Sahayika of Village Amandula (Bhatapara), in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to appoint/select the petitioner in the post of Anganbadi Sahayika of Village Amandula (Bhatapara). 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and respondent No. 6, along with other eligible candidates, participated for the post of Assistant Anganwadi Worker, Center Amandula, Block Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa. He would further submit that the merit list was prepared on 09.12.2010 by the selection committee, wherein the petitioner had secured 45.88 marks, whereas respondent No. 6 was at 3rd position by securing 42.10 marks. He would also submit that the order of appointment was issued in favour of respondent No. 6 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda, on 25.03.2011. He would contend that the order of appointment was challenged by filing an appeal by the petitioner before the Collector, and it was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to respondent No. 3 to re-evaluate the merit list after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties. He would further contend that thereafter a fresh order was passed by respondent No. 3 on 19/22.11.2011 and respondent No. 6 was again appointed to the said post. He would also contend that another appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Collector, and it was dismissed on the ground of delay vide order dated 14.05.2012. He would further argue that the Commissioner also dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 3 27.12.2013. He would also argue that the petitioner filed WP227 No. 100 of 2014, which was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to respondent No. 2/Collector to decide it afresh vide order dated 21.08.2012. Mr. Patel would further state that the Collector partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and canceled the appointment order of respondent No. 6 vide order dated 02.08.2021 and directed respondent No. 3 to prepare a fresh merit list. He would also state that the Chief Executive Officer, Malkharoda, again appointed respondent No. 6, and in the merit list, her marks have been enhanced from 42.10 to 47.10. He would pray to set-aside the orders impugned and to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that pursuant to the order passed by the Collector dated 02.08.2021, respondent No. 3 scrutinized the matter and prepared a fresh merit list. They would further submit that initially, 10 marks against the reserved category was wrongly awarded to respondent No. 6 and it was withdrawn. They would also submit that as respondent No. 6 is a deserted lady and a certificate in accordance with clause 1.10 was issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat, 15 additional marks were awarded to respondent No. 6. They would contend that the merit list was scrutinized thrice pursuant to orders issued by the Collector and the Commissioner, and therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Initially, respondent No. 6 was appointed to the post of Assistant Anganwadi Worker, and the said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector. The Collector remitted the matter back 4 to respondent No. 3, and the said authority re-assessed the marks allotted to the candidates, and again, respondent No. 6 was appointed. The said order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Collector, but on account of delay, it was dismissed, and the said order was affirmed by the Commissioner too. The Coordinate Bench, in WP227 No. 100 of 2014, vide order dated 21.08.2018, remitted the matter back to the Collector to decide it on merits. The Collector directed respondent No. 3 to prepare a fresh merit list after affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties. Respondent No. 3 again prepared a merit list strictly in accordance with the provisions contemplated in the circular dated 02.04.2008 and awarded 47.10 marks to respondent No. 6 and 45.88 marks to the petitioner. 6. The contention made by Mr. Patel with regard to desertion certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 6, it appears that it was issued by the competent authority i.e. Sarpanch and Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat in accordance with clause 1.10 of the circular dated 02.04.2008, and therefore, respondent No. 3 rightly awarded 15 marks for the said certificate to respondent no. 6 and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 7. Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities. 8. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant