Dismissed

Mina Sahu v. the Chief Executive Off. Palari Jan.

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2014WPS/3718/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 8 as an Aangan Badi worker, the single bench held that the petitioners failed to show any error or illegality in the appointment. The court noted respondent No. 8 was a destitute woman entitled to preference and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs (implied by dismissal).

Mina Sahu Vs the Chief Executive Off. Palari Jan. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

$M§§2^gay$21

¶2

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION (S) No. %7^{1 g} Izoos

¶4

Hon’ble Single Bench

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

i
i
2.
Q‘k
M(3‘3 J{ 3.
‘Q‘Q; )\’0“
o?” \ ‘Pc‘t‘
I qte v @V‘
‘(\ \y
O‘a
i, 4.
5.
6.
7.

¶7

¶8

Mina Sahu conteqagf‘gtant Angan Badi worker W/ o Shiv Kumar Sahu, aged about 22 years resident cultivator of village and Gram Pachayat Khapari(s) in Janpad Pachayat Palari District Raipur (C.G.) s VERSUS The Chief Executive Officer Palari Janpad Panchayat Palari District Raipur (C.G.) The Janpad Panchayat Palari through - I the Chief Executive Officer Palari District Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

The Collector Raipur, Wwmt‘v Department Panchayat and rural Development District Raipur (C.G.) The State of Chhattisgarh through

¶10

Secretary Department Panchayat and Rural Development.

¶11

The Director Panchayat of the State of Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur. The Additional Collector Baloda Bazar District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

The Gram Panchayat Khapari through the Sarpanch, in, the Janpad Panchayat Palari District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

Smt.^’Anjani Sahu W/o Rajkumartaged /

¶14

m^mm NWWQE

¶15

about 32 years resident of village Girra Janpad Panchayat Palari at present residing at village Khapari Tahsil Palari v District Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF MANDAMUS, CERCIORARY PROHIBITION ETC. OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTION OR ORDER

¶17

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH^ATBILASPUR _

¶18

WP (S) No.3718 0f2008

PETITIONER

Mina Sahu

-Versus—

RESPONDENTS: The Chief Executive Officer, ‘Panchayat Palari Janpad & others

¶23

Present

¶24

Shri SP Sahu,^{counselforthe} petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi,^{PanelLawyerfortheState.} Shri Jamil Akhtar^{Lohani,counselforrespondentNo.8.}

¶25

Single Bench: Hon’ble^{ShriPrashantKumarMishra,J.}

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(15—7—2014) _

¶28

The petitioner has^{assailedthelegalityandvalidity0ftheorder} passed by the Director,^{Panchayatrejectinghisrevisionapplication,whichin} turn, was preferred against^{theappellateorder} passed^{bytheCollector,} Baloda Bazar on 31.7.2007, which in turn, was preferred by the petitioner^{challengingtheorderpassedbytheCEO,JanpadPanchayat,} Palari on 22.11.2006 appointing respondent No.8 as Aangan Badi Worker ofvillage, Cc^[N ($1)

¶29

According to the petitioner, respondent No.8 was ineligible and less meritorious, yet she was wrongly appointed by the concerned CEO, therefore, the appellate^{andrevisionalauthorityshouldhaveinterfered} and set aside the order^{of appointmentof respondentNo.8.}

¶30

On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.8 would submit that respondent No.8 is a destitute woman and has rightly^been granted preference^{undertheextantState} Government circular.

¶31

Indisputably, the State Government has issued the circular dated 6.1.2000 issuing guidelines/procedure^{forappointmentofAanganBadi} m.

¶32

¶33

¶34

Workers and Assistants. Under the said circular, the candidates should be the resident of same locality/Village; should be a voter of the concerned Gram Panchayat; widow/destitute woman should be granted preference,^{SC/STcandidates} should be granted preference, BPL family should be granted preference, candidates should be 8th standard pass and the relatives of the Panchayat Raj Institution and Government servants should not be appointed.

¶35

. Preference has to be considered in order of seniority one after the another.

¶36

. While dealing with the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner, both the authorities have found that respondent No.8 is a destitute woman and as such, she deserves preference in the matter of appointment. It is also recorded that respondent No.8 does not suffer from any ineligibility and she being fully qualified to be appointed, by virtue of preference which she deserves, she has rightly been appointed as Aangan Badi Worker of village W (W)

¶37

. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition, this-Court does not find any error or illegality in the appointment ofrespondent No.8 as Aangan Badi Worker. The Collector and the Director, Panchayat have not committed any illegality while rejecting the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner.

¶38

. The writ petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶39

Barve

¶40

Sd/Prashant Kumar Misma 7 v Judge z

Mina Sahu v. the Chief Executive Off. Palari Jan.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mina Sahu v. the Chief Executive Off. Palari Jan.

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

Satyawat Mahapatra and Ors. Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.

Teshlal Prajapati Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and Ors.

Alam Das Koshley and Ors. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh and 2 Others Vs Chandan Lal Katare

Smt.shashi Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Guha Ram Miri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.