Remanded

Smt.santoshi Tandan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC20 Aug 2024WPS/3216/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged her deprivation from an employment appointment due to alleged manipulation regarding BPL card status and caste marks. The court dismissed a plea of alternative remedy due to a 10-year delay pending interim relief but remitted the matter to authorities to re-examine eligibility and prepare a fresh merit list.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; matter remitted to respondents to re-examine issues and prepare fresh merit list; petitioner continues on post.

Smt.santoshi Tandan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

NAFR

¶4

2024:CGHC:31786

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3216 of 2014

¶7

Smt.Santoshi Tandan, W/o Harinarayan Tandan, Aged About 23 Years, Working As An ‘Anganbadi Sahayika’ At Anganbadi Centre Sakrali-02, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, R/o Village Sakrali, P.S. Dabhra, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Woman and Child Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5 - Smt. Vishnu Kumari, W/o Parsadi, R/o Village Sakrali, Ps Dabhra, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Neelam Khan, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

21.08.2024

¶16

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶17

“ 10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order Dated 21.04.2014 (AnnexureP/1) issued by Collector, Janjgir-Champa;

¶18

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Memo Dated 17.06.2014 (Annexure-P/2) issued by Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Dabhra, District JanjgirChampa;

¶19

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

¶20

-2-

¶21

quash the appointment order of respondent No.5, (if any);

¶22

10.4. To kindly grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/direction(s), which deemed fit & just in the facts circumstances of the case including awarding the costs to the petitioner.”

¶23

The facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued for the post of ‘Anganwadi Sahayika’ in the year 2011. The petitioner, respondent No.5 and other eligible candidates submitted their application forms. On the basis of marks obtained in the Class-8^th and the benefit of reservation/desertion certificate/BPL card, the final evaluation list was prepared for the post of ‘Anganwadi Sahayika’ and an appointment order was issued on 25.06.2011 in favour of 5 selected candidates including the present petitioner by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dabhra (for short, CMO, Dabhra). The appointment of the petitioner was challenged by filing an appeal before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa on the ground that there was manipulation in the BPL ration card along with her application and the year 1997 was manipulated as 2002. The Collector found the allegations leveled against the petitioner proved and cancelled the appointment order issued in her favour. Pursuant to that order, respondent No. 4 re-evaluated the marks obtained by the candidates and

¶24

published the final list with the marks which are as follows:-

¶25

Name of the candidates	Total marks
Smt. Vishnu Kumari (Respondent No.5)	49.84
Smt. Santoshi(petitioner)	45.40
Smt. Malti	37.40
Smt. Uttarakumari	28.08
Smt. Komalbai	27.60

¶26

The petitioner has preferred this petition against the order passed by the

¶27

-3-

¶28

Collector and respondent No. 4. Vide order dated 14.07.2014, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner by virtue of that the petitioner is working on the post of ‘Anganwadi Sahayika’.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 5 was shown as a member of Scheduled Caste, but in the list of BPL card holders published in the year 2002, she was shown as a member of Scheduled Tribes. It is further argued that in that list, the name of the head of the family of the petitioner is mentioned at serial No. 49. He further submitted that the BPL card was issued in favour of the petitioner in the years 2002 & 2004 and the same was issued by the prescribed authority. He also submitted that respondent No. 5 was actually awarded 10-10 marks against the caste. He further contended that there is no manipulation in the figure 1997 which was rounded off by someone else, and there was no reason for the petitioner to round off the figure as 2002 herself. A fresh BPL card was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2002; thus, he prayed that the order passed by respondents No. 2 & 4 may be quashed.

¶30

On the other hand, Ms. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submitted that the figure 1997 mentioned in the BPL ration card was manipulated by the petitioner and in the appeal preferred by respondent No. 5 this fact was found correct by respondent No.2/Collector, therefore, the appeal was allowed. She further submitted that respondent No. 5 belongs to the Scheduled Tribes category and is recorded as a member of the Scheduled Caste category in the BPL ration card. Respondent No. 5 had challenged the appointment order of the petitioner; therefore, the issue raised against the petitioner with regard to the caste of respondent No. 5 is not maintainable at this stage. She contended that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner against the order passed by the Collector, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.

¶31

-4-

¶32

1. Ms. Sonkar would endorse the submissions made by the counsel for respondent No. 5.

¶33

1. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶34

1. It is true that initially the petitioner was appointed to the post of ‘Anganwadi Sahayika’ vide appointment order dated 25.06.2011; later on, the non-selected candidate preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner had manipulated the BPL ration card issued in the year 1997 and the same was rounded off by the petitioner to 2002 and the appeal was allowed; a fresh final evaluation list was prepared and respondent No. 5 was given appointment; the petitioner approached this Court and an interim order was passed in her favour; and, by virtue of that order, she is still working on the post of ‘Anganwadi Sahayika’.

¶35

1. The issue involved in the present case is whether the petitioner was entitled to get 6 marks against the BPL ration card, particularly when in the year 2004 a fresh BPL card was issued in favour of the elder member of the family of the petitioner & her name is present in the list of BPL member 2002. Whether respondent No. 5 belongs to the SC community, as in the list of BPL members, her category is mentioned as Scheduled Tribes and she was awarded 10 marks for the aforesaid post.

¶36

1. With regard to alternative remedy, the present petition remained pending before this Court for a considerable period and after a lapse of 10 years, it would not be appropriate to dismiss this petition, when the interim order is still operating in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the matter is remitted back to respondents No. 2 & 4 to re-examine the issue involved in the present case and take a decision afresh by preparing a fresh merit list.

¶38

1. Since the petitioner is working on the post of ‘Anganwadi Sahayika’ by virtue of

¶39

-5-

¶40

the interim order passed by this Court on 14.07.2014, she will remain on that

¶41

post till a decision is taken by the authorities.

¶42

With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby

¶43

disposed of .

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶46

Judge

¶47

Nadim

Smt.santoshi Tandan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.santoshi Tandan 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

Smt.savita Mishra Vs The State Of Government Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Himanshu Singh Rana Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pila Babu Nagvanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Shailesh Tiwari Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors.

Raju Singh Porte Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Asma Ahmad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh