Partly allowed

Smt. Saroj v. Smt. Savita and Others

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2017WP227/3183/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the Additional Collector's observation deeming a rival candidate eligible. The matter was remitted to the Chief Executive Officer to consider the petitioner's and the rival's eligibility strictly according to the circular dated 01-01-2000 regarding voter list inclusion at the time of the advertisement.

What did the court decide?

The specific observation holding respondent No.4 eligible was set aside. Matter remitted to the Chief Executive Officer to consider eligibility of all candidates as per circular dated 01-01-2000 withi

Smt. Saroj Vs Smt. Savita and Others — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

W.P.(Art. 227)No.3183/2009

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Page 1 of 3

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.3183 of 2009

¶6

Smt. Saroj, W/o Kamalnarayan Sahu, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Karanjiya, Bhansuli, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.)

¶7

(Revisioner) ---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Savita, W/o Bisahu Sahu, aged about not known, R/o Village Karanjiya, Bhansuli, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.)

¶10

Smt. Annapurna, W/o Hirendra Kumar Sahu, aged about not known, R/o Village Karanjiya, Bhansuli, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.)

¶11

Smt. Rajeshwari, W/o Sukhnandan Sahu, aged about not known, R/o Village Karanjiya, Bhansuli, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.)

¶12

Ku. Yashoda, D/o Naresh Gond, aged about not known, R/o Village Karanjiya, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.)

¶13

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.)

¶14

Project Officer, Unified Child Development Service, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.)

¶15

(Defendants)

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner: Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents No.4 and 6: -

¶18

Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶20

Order On Board

¶21

01/08/2017

¶22

Application for appointment of Aanganbadi Karyakarta of Aanganbadi Centre at Village Karanjiya, was called by Village Panchayat Karanjiya, Janpad Panchayat Bemetara, for which the petitioner and the private respondents applied. The petitioner was

¶23

W.P.(Art. 227)No.3183/2009

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

appointed and order dated 27-2-2007 was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bemetara in favour of the petitioner against which respondent No.1 Smt. Savita preferred appeal before the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector, Bemetara set aside the order passed in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bemetara for fresh consideration holding that respondent No.4 is entitled and should be given preference. The petitioner preferred revision and that was also dismissed against which this writ petition has been preferred.

¶26

Mr. P.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent No.4 did not prefer appeal and she has been held to be eligible by the learned Additional Collector which is unsustainable and bad in law and she is not eligible because her name is not included in the voter list of the Gram Panchayat for consideration on the date of issuance of advertisement.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 6 would oppose the above argument and would support the impugned order.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order and other material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

The fact remains that the Additional Collector has remanded the matter to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bemetara for fresh consideration, but at the same time, learned Additional Collector has committed illegality in holding that respondent No.4

¶30

W.P.(Art. 227)No.3183/2009

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

fulfills the eligibility criteria of the State Government circular. That part of the order is, however, set aside and the matter is remitted to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bemetara who shall consider the eligibility of the candidates including the petitioner on the date of issuance of advertisement in terms of circular dated 6- 1-2000, strictly in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order.

¶33

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally

¶34

disposed of. Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶35

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶36

Soma

Smt. Saroj v. Smt. Savita and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saroj v. Smt. Savita 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

Santosh Namdeo Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sakun Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Executive Engineero and M and Others Vs Sanjay Kedia

Chandrika Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Agrawal Vs Manik Chand Jain and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Vs Shivbalak Ram Yadav