Disposed

Smt.Raniya Devi v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Apr 2016WP/1770/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the set-aside of the petitioner's appointment as Aangan Badi Worker. It directed that the matter be remitted to the Additional Collector for a fresh hearing on merits, including the petitioner, within three months, after noting the violation of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stood disposed of by remitting the matter back to the Additional Collector for passing a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner, respondent No.4, and all other interested

Smt.Raniya Devi Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

IN THE HIGH CGEJRT OF JOfflCCATORE AT (C.G.)
•rz£?
WRIT PETITION NG. i^7 70 QF 20®1 <£'/
BETWE®
ite* Raitiya Devi td.fe ®fMantoodh ,aged abeut 23 years,
Resideat; of Village Pathalcpar (Haripar),Tehsil sarajpur,
Bi s-trict Sargaj a (C.S.).

¶5

PETITI0NER
/'
a H D
State of Ghbattisgarb,t;hrough tbe
Secretary B^ai-tHient. af Panctiayat,
Mantralay, D.K.Buildlng, Ralpur.
r-
...A^-^&^^
R»e colleGtor,sarguja,
(^2- Bistrlet sargaja^ .p--NO'.'^^ri'<?^%^-"'
^«!8&0^'.<.A-'-""
1
y^S^—^^2,..7--
l..r&0 """
Ghief Escecutive Offieer,
Janpad Panehayat, surajpur,
Blsfcrict Sarguja.

¶6

Swk... iaev Kemari. wi.fe_o^ Sl.-taram,_
I
Re^lgS^yaE •Wlsllage Pathakpar
T^i|sil Sarajpttr,Mstriet; Sargaja*
SaEa8>aaebti:^©E's^^EaaclMi^a't^garl.^ir,
9
RESPGNDENTS
.!' .ill
226/227 0F *HE CeHSTITUTKM 0F :3BB>U

¶7

¶8

lllirT

¶9

•W» »^WNW>—*—~...^(A. .^ <3rtMjlti^.

¶10

";"r-i.E33 ^>'

¶11

NAFR

¶12

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

WPN^, 1770 of 2001

Smt. Raniya Devi

—— Petitioner

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

¶18

—— Respondent

¶19

For Petitioner ShriArun Shukla.Advocate. For Respondent/State Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.4 Shri T.R. Chandrakar, Advocate.

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶21

Order On Board

¶22

04/04/2016

¶23

In a matter concerning appointment of Aangan Badi Worker for Gram Haripur (Badkapara) the petitioner was appointed on 26.8.2000, which was assailed by respondent No.4 by preferring an appeal before the Additional Collector.

¶24

By the impugned order dated 28.2.2001, the Additional Collector allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 and has set aside the petitioner's appointment on the ground that the provisions contained in Clause-5 of the circular dated 6.1.2000 relating to appointment of Aangan Badi Worker have not been complied with inasmuch as respondent No.4 being member of BPL family deserves preference, ignoring which the petitioner has been appointed.

¶25

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate Court

¶26

should have issued notice to the petitioner and provided her opportunity of hearing, however, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel would also submit that the certificates produced by respondent No.4 during the selection process^werenot genuine.

¶27

'%iiS8g<'gjg|

¶28

¶29

Admittedly, the Additional Collector proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order. On 16.5.2001, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order. However, when it was informed to the Additional Collector that the present writ petition is pending before the High Court, the Additional Collector did not proceed in the matter.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers^{annexedtothewrit} petition,^{itappearsmoreappropriateifthe} parties^{areheardbytheAdditionalCollectortodecidetheappeal} preferred by respondent No.4 afresh. The order passed by the Additional Collector being ex-parte in nature and the petitioner having been appointed and working as Aangan Badi Worker, it wUl serve ends of justice if the petitioner is also heard by the Additional Collector on merits before deciding the matter.

¶31

Accordingly, fhe matter is remitted back to the Additional Collector for passing fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner, respondent No.4 and all other interested parties. Let fresh hearing and decision be made within a period of 3 months from today.

¶32

With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposedof. —--

¶33

Barve

¶34

Sd//.-ss^ Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^.; ..'•s.

Smt.Raniya Devi v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Raniya Devi v. the 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

Radheshyam Chandraker and Ors. Vs Nagar Palika Parishad and Ors.

Heeralal Yadu Vs Smt. Itwara

B.P. Sharma Vs State

Smt. Jyoti Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Andhra Samaj, Bilaspur and Another Vs Union of India and Others

Smt.Nirmala Sahu Vs State and Ors.