5 . The counsel appearing for the respective respondents however opposing the petition submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the Additional Collector and it does not warrant any interference for the reason that the findings arrived are purely in accordance with the rules and guidelines framed by the State Government. So far as the appointment of the Anganbadi worker is concerned, it was also the contention of the respondents that as far as the competency and authority of the Additional Collector is concerned, since it is only the Collector which is referred to in Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995, the Collector would include the Additional Collector and thus there is no lack of jurisdiction or competence so far as the Additional Collector is concerned while passing the impugned order. It was further highlighted by the respondents that there is no quarrel or dispute so far as the guidelines which have been framed by the State Government is concerned, where it has been categorically held that while granting the preference to a candidate, the widow should be given the top most priority, thereafter it should be the deserted lady and then thereafter it would be the candidates belonging to the schedule caste/schedule tribe category and the claim of the petitioner does not fall in any of these category and therefore the case of the petitioner is not in accordance to the
