1 - Suman Yadav Daughter Of Ramdas Aged About 24 Years Caste- Ahir, Resident v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.19 19:22:42 +0530 2025:CGHC:48233-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 687 of 2025 1 - Suman Yadav Daughter Of Ramdas Aged About 24 Years Caste- Ahir, Resident Of Village- Sitarampur, Police Station - Balrampur, Tahsil - Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District - Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh), District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 2 4 - The Project OfÏcer Integrated Child Development Project, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Chief Executive OfÏcer Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sarita Yadav Wife Of Mukesh Yadav Caste - Ahir, Resident Of Sitarampur, Tahsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
:Shri Lalit Jangde, Advocate. For Respondents/State :Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.09.2025 1. 2. Heard Shri Lalit Jangde, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing 3 the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge
Decision
in Writ Petition WPS No.1454/2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned Writ Court. 3. The brief facts of the case is that an advertisement was issued on 10.4.2017 for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Centre Karampani, Gram Panchayat Sitarampur, Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganjon. According to learned counsel for the appellant seven candidates participated in the recruitment process, and after due verification of the documents submitted by the candidates, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker vide order dated 25.1.2018. According to learned counsel, respondent No.6 challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Collector, which was allowed vide order dated 31.7.2019. The said order was afÏrmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 4.1.2021. Against the order dated 4.1.2021, the WPS No. 1454/2021 was preferred. According to learned counsel, respondent No.6 failed to submit the requisite domicile certificate along with her application form; therefore, her 4 candidature was not considered. He would also contend that both the Collector and the Commissioner failed to appreciate this crucial fact. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “5. The petitioner has raised only one ground that respondent No.6 was not a resident of the Gram Panchayat Sitarampur and failed to submit the required residence certificate along with her application form, and therefore, her name was not considered for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. 6. However, perusal of the certificate issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Sitarampur would show that it was issued strictly in accordance with clause 1.5 of the circular dated 2.4.2008. The selection committee did not consider this certificate, and the petitioner was appointed. However, in the appeal, the Collector set aside the appointment order 5 of the petitioner and allowed the appeal. The order passed by the Collector has been afÏrmed by the Commissioner. 7. Clause 1.5 of the circular dated 2.4.2008 reads as under:- “1.5 जि(cid:2)स ቇኋ(cid:6)म म(cid:8) आं(cid:10)गनबा(cid:6)़ቡ(cid:15) के(cid:17)न््ቖ खो(cid:21)ला(cid:6) (cid:2)(cid:6)न(cid:6) ्ቚस्ता(cid:6)वि(cid:27)ता है(cid:29) या(cid:6) (cid:2)है(cid:6)(cid:31) पद रि#क्ता है(cid:29), आं(cid:27)(cid:17)दिदके(cid:6) उस(cid:15) ቇኋ(cid:6)म के’ ए(cid:27)(cid:10) नग#(cid:15)या ቌኔ(cid:17)्ቔ के(cid:17) लिलाए उस(cid:15) (cid:27)(cid:6)्ቑ- के’ ቝኋ(cid:6)न(cid:15)या विन(cid:27)(cid:6)स(cid:15) है(cid:21)न(cid:6) चा(cid:6)विहैया(cid:17)। आं(cid:27)(cid:17)दन प्ቔ के(cid:17) स(cid:6)थ विन(cid:27)(cid:6)स के(cid:17) स(cid:10)बा(cid:10)ध म(cid:8) विनम्नलिलाखिखोता म(cid:8) स(cid:17) के(cid:21)ई एके दस्ता(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:2) स(cid:10)लाग्न विकेया(cid:6) (cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:17)ग(cid:6)7- के. उस ቇኋ(cid:6)म/नग#(cid:15)या ቌኔ(cid:17)्ቔ के’ अ्ቕतान मताद(cid:6)ता(cid:6) स:चा(cid:15) म(cid:8) न(cid:6)म द(cid:2)- है(cid:21) ता(cid:21) आं(cid:27)(cid:17)दन प्ቔ म(cid:8) उसके(cid:17) केम(cid:6)(cid:10)के के(cid:6) उल्ला(cid:17)खो के# ्ቚवितालिलाविप लाग(cid:6)ई (cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:17)। अथ(cid:27)(cid:6) खो. स(cid:10)बा(cid:10)धिधता ቇኋ(cid:6)म प(cid:10)चा(cid:6)याता के(cid:17) स#प(cid:10)चा ताथ(cid:6) सलिचा(cid:27) व्द(cid:6)#(cid:6) स(cid:10)या>क्ता. हैस्ता(cid:6)ቌኔरि#ता अथ(cid:27)(cid:6) पट(cid:27)(cid:6)#(cid:15) ताथ(cid:6) नग#(cid:15)या विनके(cid:6)या@ म(cid:8) के’ (cid:2)(cid:6)न(cid:17) (cid:27)(cid:6)ला(cid:15) विनया>ሹኌक्ता म(cid:8) (cid:27)(cid:6)्ቑ- प(cid:6)्ቧ-द अथ(cid:27)(cid:6) पट(cid:27)(cid:6)#(cid:15) ቛኋ(cid:6)#(cid:6) (cid:2)(cid:6)#(cid:15) ्ቚम(cid:6)ण प्ቔ जि(cid:2)सम(cid:8) (cid:27)(cid:6)्ቑ- ए(cid:27)(cid:10) ቇኋ(cid:6)म म(cid:8) विन(cid:27)(cid:6)स#ता #हैन(cid:17) के(cid:6) पता(cid:6) सविहैता ्ቢ्ቖ उल्ला(cid:17)खो है(cid:21)। 6 टGप7 यादिद विकेस(cid:15) आं(cid:27)(cid:17)दके के(cid:17) विन(cid:27)(cid:6)स के(cid:17) स(cid:10)बा(cid:10)ध म(cid:8) के(cid:21)ई लिHके(cid:6)याता ्ቚ(cid:6)प्ता है(cid:21)ता(cid:15) है(cid:29) ता(cid:21) उस आं(cid:27)(cid:17)दके के(cid:17) विन(cid:27)(cid:6)स के(cid:17) सत्या(cid:6)पन है(cid:17)ता> सቌኔम अधिधके(cid:6)#(cid:15) ቛኋ(cid:6)#(cid:6) (cid:2)(cid:6)#(cid:15) विन(cid:27)(cid:6)स स(cid:10)बा(cid:10)ध(cid:15) ्ቚम(cid:6)ण पन््ቔ है(cid:15) म(cid:6)न्या7 विकेया(cid:6) (cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:17)ग(cid:6) ।" 8. Taking into consideration the residence certificate issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Sitarampur, in favour of the petitioner filed as Annexure-R-6/4, the provision of clause 1.5 of the circular dated 2.4.2008 and the findings recorded by the Collector and Commissioner, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s)” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order is inconsistent with the facts and circumstances of the case. He would submit that as per the State Government’s circular/policy, only a permanent resident of the concerned Gram Panchayat is eligible for appointment as Anganbadi Worker. He further submits that respondent no. 6 did not submit a domicile certificate issued by the competent authority while filing her application and was accordingly declared ineligible in the merit list; her marriage with one 7 Mukesh Yadav of Village Khatwa (Bardar), District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) and her subsequent residence with him further disentitles her from claiming residence at Gram Panchayat Sitarampur; moreover, the domicile certificate was produced only after issuance of the merit list, which is impermissible in law, and the caste certificate she had submitted records her residence at Village Bhitiyahi, while her name is also absent from the voter list of Gram Panchayat Sitarampur; therefore, it is evident that only for the purpose of securing appointment respondent no. 6 has submitted a forged and fabricated domicile certificate showing her residence at Gram Panchayat Sitarampur, and hence her appointment cannot be sustained. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner. He further submits that hat a domicile certificate issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat was filed along with the application form, and this fact has been considered by the Collector and the Commissioner. He further submit that, according to the recruitment policy for Anganwadi Workers 8 dated 2.4.2008, a certificate signed by the Sarpanch and Secretary is acceptable as proof of residence. He would also submit that both authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact . Since the order passed by the learned Single Judge on correct appreciation of facts and law, it does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. On perusal of the record and having considered the rival submissions, it is evident that Clause 1.5 of the circular dated 02.04.2008 clearly contemplates that proof of residence can be either by way of entry in the updated voter list or by a certificate jointly signed by the Sarpanch and Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat. As far as respondent no. 6 is concerned, (Annexure R-6/4) resident certificate has been issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Sitarampur. Hence both the Collector and the Commissioner, upon due appreciation of material on record, recorded concurrent findings in favour of respondent no. 6, which findings have been correctly afÏrmed by the learned Single Judge. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant 9 are only a reiteration of the grounds already considered and rejected by the learned Single Judge. We find no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment warranting interference in the exercise of writ appellate jurisdiction. 9. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 10. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib