This petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's appointment as Anganbadi worker. The court examined whether the petitioner satisfied the voter eligibility condition under state guidelines, finding the petitioner was not a voter of the specific Gram Panchayat. Petition dismissed.
none
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, BILASPUR
Reserved for orders on :19/11/2020
Order passed on :07/12/2020
WP227 No. 5076 of 2010
---- Petitioner/Revisioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioner – Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 – Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate. For State/Respondents 2 to 5 – Shri D.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant CAV Order
07-12-2020
Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking indulgence of this Court for quashing the order dated 04-02-2010 passed by the Addl. Collector Bemetara, order dated 25-02-2010 passed by the Additional Collector Bemetara in Panchayat Appeal (Revenue) Case No.87A/89/2007-08 and order dated 28-082010 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division.
-2-
petitioner has also received training for the post she was appointed as per requirement. The respondent No.1 then filed appeal No.87A/89 of year 200708 before the Additional Collector Bemetara challenging the appointment of the petitioner. The appeal filed was time barred. Learned Additional Collector Bemetara by order dated 04-02-2010 allowed the application of respondent No.1 under Section 5 of Limitation Act and admitted the appeal in an erroneous manner and subsequent to that, the final order was passed in the appeal proceeding on 25-02-2010 by allowing the appeal and dismissing the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner then preferred revision before the Commissioner Raipur Division. The revision was dismissed by the order dated 28-08-2010.
It is submitted that the respondent No.1 had earlier made a representation before the Collector (Women and Child Development Department) Durg, C.G. regarding which she was communicated by memo dated 13-03-2007 (Annexure-P/10), in which the respondent No.1 was informed that the petitioner had all qualifications required and she also has seniority compared to the respondent No.1 and the representation was rejected.
It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the
-3 -
Additional Collector has decided the appeal by dismissing the appointment of the petitioner subsequent to the decision taken by the Collector on the representation made by the respondent. The Additional Collector being subordinate to the Collector had no authority to review the decision taken by the Collector or vary the same or set aside the same, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 25-02-2010 is illegal and similarly the order upheld by the Commissioner on 28-08-2010 is also illegal, which have no force of law. It is prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned orders be quashed and relief be granted in favour of the petitioner.
It is submitted, that voter list on which the petitioner is relying upon is with respect to State Assembly constituency and not of Gram Panchayat. The name of the petitioner Kunti Bai appears in Serial No. 348 in the voter list of the year 2009. It is submitted that the guidelines issued by the State Government on 27-05-1996 very clearly lays down the condition, that candidate for Anganbadi worker must be a voter of the respective Gram Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat where he or she is proposed to be appointed. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has misled the authority at the time of her appointment because of which the order was issued in her favour, despite her ineligibility for the appointment. It is submitted that it has been held by this Court in Writ
-4-
Appeal No.108/2009 between parties Smt. Rambai Dansena Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others by order dated 18-06-2010 that condition for appointment of a candidate as Anganbadi worker, as laid down in the guidelines cannot be relaxed by the Court and the condition that has been settled in the policy for appointment of Anganbadi worker has to be complied with. It is submitted that in the case of Draupati Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and others , 2013 (2) M.P.L.J. 407, by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, it has been similarly held that the scheme of appointment of Anganbadi worker has to be followed as it is. Therefore, dismissal of the appointment of the petitioner is well founded and in accordance with law. The present petition is without any substance which may be dismissed.
-5 -
scheme for the appointment of Anganbadi worker was issued by the State Government by circular dated F-8-3/95/50-2 on 27-05-1996 in which there appears to be no challenge till date. The first condition for the appointment of Anganbadi worker set out is this, that the proposed candidate should be a voter of the voter list of Gram Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat, as the case may be. This is the only ground in contest in this case.
The petitioner claims that she was a voter of the voter list of Gram Panchayat Bharchatti on the date she was appointed. Relevant date of her appointment is 30-12-2006. The learned Additional Collector has while deciding the appeal on 25-02-2010 has made observation in the impugned order that the name of the petitioner is not reflected in the voter list of Gram Panchayat Bharchatti, on the other hand, the voter list on which the petitioner is placing reliance is a supplementary voter list of State Assembly. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was against the guidelines. As it is claimed by the petitioner that her name is present in the voter list of Gram Panchayat, copy of the voter list that has also been filed along with the petition shows her name in Serial No.348, but this voter list has been prepared for the year 2009. Copy of the voter list for Gram Panchayat Bharchatti that was prepared earlier in the year 2004, does not show the name of the petitioner in Serial No.348 which has been filed as Annexure-R/1/1 by the respondent No.1. Hence, it is found that the submission made by the petitioner side that the petitioner had been a voter in the voter list of Gram Panchayat Bharchatti at the time of her appointment in the year 2006 is not supported with any documentary proof.
The principle with regard to the appointment of Anganbadi worker as laid down in the case of Draupati Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) and this Court in Writ Appeal No.108/2009 is very clear that the scheme for appointment of Anganbadi worker settled by the State Government cannot be varied or modified by Courts. Hence, I am of this view that the impugned orders
-6-
passed do not suffer from any infirmity and appear to be within jurisdiction of the said authorities. Hence, the present petition is without any substance, which is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge
Aadil
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner qualified as a voter of the Gram Panchayat Bharchatti at the time of her appointment as Anganbadi worker.
Whether the scheme for appointment of Anganbadi workers can be varied by courts.
Whether the orders dismissing the petitioner's appointment were within the jurisdiction of the authorities.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Rambai Dansena Vs. State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶32
Writ Appeal No.108/2009
Draupati Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.Applied¶32
Draupati Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2013 (2) M.P.L.J. 407
Kunti Bai W/o Shri Parasram Sen
Basantibai W/o Ramji Patil
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Berla
Project Officer, Integrated Women and Child Development Project, Berla
Commissioner, Raipur Division
Additional Collector, Bemetara
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
