Partly allowed

Smt. Mithla Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC6 Sept 2011WPS/2192/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a revision order directing fresh recruitment proceedings for an Anganwadi centre. The High Court set aside the order, holding that the revisional court erred in deciding on merits after the lower authority dismissed the appeal only on limitation grounds, and remitted the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.3.2011 set aside and matter remitted to Commissioner to decide the revision confining itself to limitation.

Smt. Mithla Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

cr? /“ Singie Bemh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

‘Bdwf WRIT PETITIONts) No.. /2011 / PETITIONER: Smt. Mithla Bai, W/o Lakhendra Das Aged about 25 years, R/o Village Limo,Tahsi1 — Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) y

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The

¶7

e Child. WelfareSecretary, Department.Women and D.K.s; Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

2.. Commissioner, Raipur Division, Distt. Raipur(C.G.)

¶9

Additiénai Collector Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶10

The Project Officer, Women and Child Development Project, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶11

¶12

The District, Women and ,

¶13

Child Development Project, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶14

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶15

Smt Sivbati @ Sanjana w/o

¶16

(1/ Sahebdas aged about 26 Years. R/o Village Limo, Tahsil ~ Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.)‘

¶17

Sarpanch/ Sachiv Gram Panchayat Limo, TahKawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) '

¶18

WRIT PETITION U A 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION DIRECTIONOF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER TO DO JUSTICEVIN THE MATTER

¶19

MPARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As stated above in the cause title. i

¶20

¶21

¶22

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶23

(Hon.^{Mr.JusticePritinker} Diwaker)

¶24

Writ Petition (S) No. 2192 of 201 1

P ETITIONER

Smt. Mithla Bai

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶29

Shri Sanjay Agrawal counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Shridhar PL for respondent Nos.1 to 5. None for respondent No.6 though served. Shri Anumesh Shrivastava counsel for respondent No.7.

¶30

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶31

O R D E R (06.09.2011)

¶32

Challenge in this petition‘is to the order dated 17.3.2011 (Annexure^P-1) passed^{bytheCommissioner,} Raipur, Division Raipur deciding the revision filed by respondent No.7 on merits and directing for initiation of fresh proceedings regarding appointment of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Limo.

¶33

Facts of the case in brief are that on 29.5.2006 vide Annexure P-3, the petitioner^{wasselectedforthe} post^{ofAnganwadiWorker,} Anganwadi Centre, Limo, District Kabirdham which was assailed by 'Sivbati spondent No.7 namely Smt. alias Sanjana before the Re Additional, Collector, Kabirdham in Revenue Case No. 125/B121/2006~07. Said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Collector on 6.7.2007 (Annexure P-4) on the ground of limitation. This order was assailed by respondent No.7 before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Revision No. 172/B-121/2010-11 and while deciding the said revision on merits, Commissioner has neither accepted the case of respondent No.7 nor found the appointment of the petitioner as valid and thus directed for initiating fresh appointment proceedings^{of AnganwadiWorkerfor AnganwadiCentre,Limo.}

¶34

400

¶35

Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Additional Collector dismissed the case of respondent No.7 vide order dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P-4) only on the ground of limitation, the Revisional Court i.e. Commissioner Raipur, Division Raipur ought not to have decided the case on merits and it was under obligation to decide the revision only on the point of limitation i.e. legality and propriety of the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 6.7.2007. He submits that the RevisiOnal Court has erred in law in entering into the merits of the case and passing the order for initiating fresh recruitment proceedings. His further submission is that the petitioner^{hasnot beenaffordedanyopportunitytocontesthiscaseon} merits.

¶36

Counsel for the respondents support the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submit that the Commissioner Raipur, Division Raipur should have decided the revision on the point of limitation only and not on merits.

¶37

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶38

From order dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P,-4) it is apparent that the Additional Collector dismissed the appeal of respondent No.7 only on the ground of limitation and did not say anything on the^meritsof the case. Learned Commissioner while passing the order impugned dated 17.3.2011 has un-necessarily entered into the merits of the case ' and passed the order neither in favour of the petitioner nOr^respondent No.7 and directed for initiating fresh recruitment proceedings.

¶39

ln view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the Commissioner^{dated17.3.2011} being contrary to the provisions of law is unsustainable^andtherefore liable to be set aside. lt is set aside as such. Matter is remitted to^the Commissioner fOr deciding the revision^{ofrespondentNo.7confining} itself to the order dated 6.7.2007 passed^{bytheAdditionalCollector} i.e. whether the Additional Collector was justified in rejecting the Revenue Case No. 125/B-121/2006-07^onlyonthe point^{oflimitation.}

¶40

-3_

¶41

No opinion has been expressed on merits of the case and the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, would be at liberty to decide the revision in accordance with law on the basis of documents available with it.

¶42

Petitioner as well as respondent No.7 will appear before the Court of the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur on 26.9.2011 and after giving due opportunity to the parties Commissioner will pass the order afresh.

¶43

Petition is thus allowed.

¶44

¶45

Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker J u dge

Smt. Mithla Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mithla Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Hema Bai Vs Smt. Omlata and Ors.

Mohan Lal Janghel Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

D.B. Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Diwaker Singh and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jamadar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Sewati Devi Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.