This judgment upholds the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's application as a Shiksha Karmi's relative. The court held that the circular dated 06/01/2000 bars relatives of government or Panchayat employees from employment as Anganbadi Workers.
Writ petition dismissed as it was devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3377 of 2010
Smt. Chameli Chauhan W/o Kshirsagar Chauhan, aged about 30 years, R/o village Nadigaon, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.).
---Petitioner
Versus
---Respondents
| For petitioner | : Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For resp.No.4 | : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate. |
| For State | : Shri Syed Majid Ali, Dy.G.A. |
Hon ' ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
22/10/2018
dated 20/05/2010 passed by the learned Commissioner, Bilaspur in revision
case No. 39/A-89/2009-10. The challenge also is to the order passed by the
Additional Collector, Raigarh in case No. 36/A-89/2008-09 on 16/03/2009.
respondent No.4 initiated steps for filling up the post of Anganbadi Worker
and the dispute in the present Writ Petition evolves around the selection of
Anganbadi Worker for Anganbadi Centre, Parasrampur under Gram
2
Panchayat, Nandigaon falls under Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela, District Raigarh.
3
any irregularity, illegality or perversity in the finding of the Additional Collector and dismissing the appeal of the petitioner affirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector.
far as the petitioner is concerned. He further contended that, even otherwise, the circular does not hold that the Shiksha Karmi or the employees of Panchayat Department would be a disqualification for their other relatives to get employment as an Anganbadi Worker. He further contended that, apart from the Government Employees, the mandate of the legislature was that it
4
would be relatives of the elected or nominated member to the Panchayat Raj Institution and to the local bodies who would not be entitled for employment
which means that an employment with Panchayat Service could not be disqualification for the other family members in seeking appointment as Anganbadi Worker.
record, it would be relevant at this juncture to once again refer to the laws referred to by the Additional Collector in his impugned order Annexure-P/2 dated 16/03/2009.
^^e-iz-'kklu] efgyk ,oa cky fodkl foHkkx] ea=ky; cYyHk Hkou] Hkksiky ds i= dzekad
,&1¼,½@99@98&99&1] fnukad 6&1&2000 ds }kjk vkaxuckMh dsanzks esa lgkf;dk@dk;ZdrkZ fu;qfDr ds fy, fu/kkZfjr vgZrk,a izdkf'kr fd;k x;k gSA funsZ'k dh dafMdk 3] bl izdkj gS%&
5
¼3½ dksbZ ljdkjh deZpkjh vFkok iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa vFkok uxjh; fudk; ds fuokZfpr vFkok euksuhr lnL; vFkok mlds lxs laca/kh dks vkaxuckMh dk;ZdrkZ fu;qDr ugha fd;k tk ldsxkA**
relatives are not an elected or nominated members of the Local Bodies.
the order but has also at the same time ordered for issuance of fresh
6
recruitment process in the light of the petitioner's husband working as a Shiksha Karmi, this Court is of the opinion that the same cannot be said to
be a perverse finding, nor can it be said to be contrary to the Rules and Regulations for the aforesaid reason that the intention of the authorities was that the person whose relative are in employment would not be entitled for
appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE
Sumit
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Shiksha Karmi falls within the ambit of Government Employees for disqualifying relatives from Anganbadi Worker appointments under the circular dated 06/01/2000.
Whether the Additional Collector and Commissioner correctly applied the circular excluding relatives in Government or Panchayat employment from participation in Anganbadi Worker selection.
If the finding that the petitioner's husband, a Shiksha Karmi, disqualifies her is arbitrary or contrary to the established rules.
Smt. Chameli Chauhan
State Of Chhattisgarh
Commissioner, Bilaspur Division
Additional Collector, Raigarh
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baramkela
Smt. Vimla @ Urmila
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
