Remanded

Usha Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jan 2017WP/4390/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning employment discrimination, the High Court directed a fact-finding enquiry to determine if the petitioner had remarried after divorce. If unmarried on the application date, she is entitled to preferential status over the selected candidate for the Aanganbadi Worker post.

What did the court decide?

Project Officer directed to hold a fact-finding enquiry within 60 days to ascertain marital status; appropriate order to be passed thereafter.

Usha Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

' ClF-lwoj^-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION (S) No. ^3 ^-6 Of 2006

¶4

PETITIONER : ^ Usha Manikpur; D/o Shri
Dhandas Mariikpuri (Divorced lady
^W/o Rameshwar Manikpuri) , aged
^
.-••'^y"' About 35 years, resident of Village
Mulmul^p-s^and
.r^?N.l$!^^-" Mumula^-post
'J^r^'^i
.-• Block_DeY^lopment~~'~~'Pamgarh,
..•••'""c.-'<::i^''^.r-':"' Dista-ictJanjgirChampa(CG).
.^!:>'"»Avis'^>>'"
'%^:-^'
VERSUS
-•|S<>'''
ysy~
RESPONDENTS :'l. The State of ' Chhattisgarh,
^•i through the Secretary , Panchayat
and Social Welfare Department,
Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan,
Raipur(CG).
'^s.. The Director,Woinen and and Child

¶5

The Director,Woinen and and Child Developraent, Departraent, Chhattisgarh, Raipur , Tahsil and District Raipur (CG).

¶6

't-;1
^ 4.
;:sys
'*».":.
..<;"^
5.
6.

¶7

The Collector, Janjgir Champa (CG). 'ghe Project Officer, Integrated Child 'jDevfelopment, Pamgarh, District ^Jagjgir Champa (CG).

¶8

'Ehe CHief Executive Officer, Janpad Pancha.ya.t Pansigarh, District Janjgir fchampa (CG).

¶9

The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat 'Mulmula, Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (CG).

¶10

ffi /7,
P^
^y.
$<
./^^y

¶11

Smt. Champa Bai W/ o Shn Gaurishanker , resident of Village Mulmula, Block Pamgarh district Janjgir Champa (CG).

¶12

•^^^^s^

¶13

?S^^Ss^?¥^S:.

¶14

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22Z^FTHE

¶15

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶16

NAFR

¶17

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

WP No.4390 of 2006

Usha Manikpuri

-— Petitioner

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

¶23

-—Respondents

¶24

For Petitioner Ms. Seema Singh, Advoeate For Respondent No.1 to 4 Shri D. R. Minz, Dy.GA For Respondent No.6 Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.7 Shri Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate

¶25

S.B. : Hon'bie^Shri^ustice Mahindra Wlohan SKrivastava

¶26

Olcder.Qn.Board

¶27

12/01/2017

¶28

This petition has beenffjledl>yi;tlie petitioner assailing correctness and validity of action of the respondents in selecting^respondent No.7 in preference to the petitioner and rejecting petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of Aanganbadi Worker in Aanganbadi Centre at Village Mulmula, Block-Pamgarh, District JanjgirChampa.

¶29

The facts ofthe case are that the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Aanganbadi worker in Village Mulmula, pursuant to advertisement dated 12-01-2016. According to the petitioner, a deserted lady is entitled to preferential treatment. The petitioner is a divorcee and a decree of divorce was passed on 29-11-1995 against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner ought to be given preferential status as compared to respondent No.7. Therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner prayed that the action of the respondents in selecting respondent No.7 be declared illegal and the respondent No.4 be directed to appoint the petitioner as perthe recommendation/resolution ofthe Gram Panchayat.

¶30

Rmv...-' ^^^""^"^...^'

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4/State submits that the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development, Pamgarh had collected information from his own sources that after divorce, the petitioner had re-married twice, resultantly, she is not entitled for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi Worker and respondent No.7 is more qualified and was considered to be more suitable for appointment as compared to the petitioner.

¶32

In the return, the respondents No.1 to 4 have placed on record the scrutiny chart and comparative chart of all the candidates, who have applied for the post of Aanganbadi Worker at Village Mulmula. There were three candidates namely Usha Manikpuri (petitioner), Champa Bai and Ram Kumari. In the chart prepared by the respondent No.4, it has been mentioned that after having been deserted, the petitioner re-married twice. The petiticin6r,;'|ias^^not .filed any rejoinder to controvert the correctness of this submission. i ; ^,:; iia'^

¶33

Whether the petitioner wa&;actuall^ re-married or not, is a matter of fact-finding enquiry. Therefore, in these circumsfarices, as to whether the petitioner should be appointed on the post of ^angartbadi:;Vy6rker or preference should be given to respondent No.7, would essentially depend on the result offactual enquiry, whether on the date of submission of application, pursuant to advertisement dated 12-01-2006, the petitioner was a deserted lady or she had re-married. The respondent No.4-Project Officer shall hold a fact-finding enquiry and he shall give notice to the petitioner, respondent No.7 as also to 3rd candidate Ram Kumari. The Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat shall also be heard in the matter. After completion of factfinding enquiry, it shall first ascertain whether the petitioner was re-married or not. If it is found that the petitioner had not re-married on the date of submission ofapplication, she shall be entitled to preferential treatment.

¶34

Considering that in this case, appointment could not be made on the post of Aanganbadi Worker due to interim order passed by this Court way back on 21-08-2006, the respondent No.4-Project Officer is directed to conclude the enquiry

¶35

s»s

¶36

within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, pass appropriate order in the matter.

¶37

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed off.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge

¶40

Tumane

Usha Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Manikpuri 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punni Ram Maravi Vs State and Ors.

P.C.Jain Vs State and Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Pannalal Sen

Keju Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and 02 Ors.

Smt. Satyabhama Lanjhewar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and 2 Ors.

Raju Ram Ekka Vs State Of Chhattisgarh