Dismissed

Smt. Indira Bai Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2007WPS/631/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge to the appointment of the second respondent as Angan Badi Sahayika. The court held that the respondent with higher qualifications was not entitled to priority over a candidate with Class 8 passing certificate under the scheme guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Article 226 writ petition dismissed summarily upholding the respondent's appointment.

Smt. Indira Bai Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2007)

¶1

.3S?'*v7^iS^''i?"."eS''^^i'SSS^S»57f^^

ws<

€~^^vv> ]_

I N TKE M ISH COU RT OF CH HAmSGARHAT BILASPUR WRITPETITION ^Sl No^ esi /2007

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

Smt. Indira Bai Sahu W/o Shri Jeevraj Sahu, Aged abouf 32 years, R/o Village Khannhariya, Tehsil & Block Berla, District Durg, C.G.

VERSUS

-AI

'i. State ofChhattisgarh, Through .the Secretary, Department of Women and Child Deyelopment, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G)

¶13

RESRONDENTS

¶14

TheCollector, District Durg, C.G.

¶15

TheCollector,
^~' District Durg, C.G.
T. ?»^ ^^: _ <s^'-<-' ^
District Child and women
^
Development Officer, Durg,
^ C.G.
^
y'
^^
Project Officer,
^y 4.
rJT ^ Integrated Child Development
i^YK^"..^ Project, Berla, District Durg, C.G.
Smt. Vandana Sahu W/o
,
•••'.i-^.'yy^c^y Dhaneshwar Sahu , Aged about
^- ^^^j 23 years, R/o Village
Khamhariya, Tehsil & Block
Berla, District Durg, C.G.
WRIT^ 'PETITION: . . ''UNDER• ARTICLE; : 226-' OF< CONSTITUTIQN_QF' •
INDIA FOR ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRITS, ORDERS OF
DIRECTIONS.

¶16

Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Berla, District Durg, C.G. Smt. Vandana Sahu W/o , Dhaneshwar Sahu , Aged about 23 years, R/o Village Khamhariya, Tehsil & Block Berla, District Durg, C.G.

¶17

¶18

HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH ATBIl.ASPUR

¶19

Writ Petition No. 631 ot 2007

¶20

Petitioner Smt. Indira Bai Sahu

¶21

Versus

¶22

Respondents State of Chhattisgarh dnd o-Hiers

¶23

Sirgle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri.

¶24

Present:. Shri Jitendra Kumar Supta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶25

'vs^ >

¶26

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

¶27

OR&ER

¶28

(Passed on2"a bay of February, 2007)

¶29

The following orderof the Court wos passed bySatish K. Agnihotri. J.

¶30

Learned counsel oppearing for the petitioner submits that the

¶31

petitioner applied for the post of Angan Badi Sahayika in villa9e Khamhariya, Tdhsil & Block Berla, District-&urg in place of the

¶32

'^-^

¶33

petitioner, the respondent No. 5 has been selected. The petitioner has impugned theorderof appointment of respondent No. 5 dated 30-12-2006 (Annexure P/l) on two grounds;- (i) the respondentNo. 5 f- is in close relation of a Panch i.e. uncle-in-law. (ii) the petitioner has better qualification i.e. Higher Secondary School Certificate ond the respondent No. 5 has Class 8 passedexamination certificate.

¶34

Explanation to Section 40 of Panchayat Raj Avam 6ram Swaraj

¶35

Adhiniyam, 1993 defines the expression 'relative'. Relative means

¶36

father, mother, brother, sister, husbond, wife,son, daughter, mother-in-taw, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-lcw or daughter-in-law. Uncle-in-law doesnot come within purview of relative. Even otherwise, in village community, it is the normal practice toaddress the inhabitants of the village by expression uncle (Kaka, Dada) etc. The address by 'Kaka' and 'Dada' does not make a

¶37

relatiye by blood relationship.

J' €•--

The submission of tearned counsel oppearing for the petitioner on Ihis point is noticed only to be rejected. With regard to the qualification, the An9<3n Badi scheme at Clause 2(1) clearly provides that a candidate having Class 8th passed examination certificate should be given priprity. In the event Class 8 passed^examination tady candidate is not wailable, Higher Secondary School Certificate passed moy be considered for oppointment. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is hming 1-ligher Secondary Examination Certificate and the respondent No. 5 is having Cloiss 8 passed e5<amination certificate. Accordingty, the respondent No. 5 has to be preferred. Accordin9ly, the appointment of the respondent No. 5 is f legal, in accordonce with guidelines for appointmentof the Angan

¶42

Badi Sahoyika.

¶43

For the reasons hereinabove, this Writ is dismissed petition

¶44

summarily.

¶45

-S(lfe:. satislii|@ 'JiKlgie^

¶46

Subhaah

Smt. Indira Bai Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Indira Bai Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Satyabhama Kashyap and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Geeta Bai Singh and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr. K.K. Jain, Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Govind Narayan Paikra and Ors. Vs State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Santu Ram Markam Vs Sarpanch Gram Panchayat and Ors.

Kaushiliya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.