Kiran Kerketta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

¶1

1 / 3

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2024:CGHC:34273

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3526 of 2013

¶7

Kiran Kerketta, W/o Shri Sunil Kerketta, Aged About 40 Years By Caste Schedule Tribe, R/o Village Remate Tahsil Kunkuri Distt. Jashpur C.G., Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Stateof Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja C.G..

¶11

3 - Collector, Distt. Jashpur C.G.

¶12

4 - Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri, Through Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur C.G.

¶13

5 - Pariyojana Adhikari, Ekikrat Bal Vikas Pariyojana, Kunkuri Distt. Jashpur C.G.

¶14

6 - Saraswati Singh D/o Suryavanshi Singh R/o Village Remate Tahsil Kunkuri Distt. Jashpur C.G. ... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner	: None even in the third round.
For State	: Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

04/09/2024

¶19

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

¶20

“10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case, from the Respondents.

¶21

10.2. That this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to set aside the Order dtd. 28.06.2013, passed by the Commissioner, herein the Respondent No. 2, in Revenue Revision No. 173/B-89/2011-12, filed by the Petitioner vide ANNEXURE P-1 , and further also be pleased to set aside the Order dtd. 31.01.2012, passed by Collector, herein the Respondent No.3, in Revenue Case No. 38/A89/2011-12, filed by Ku Saraswati Singh, herein

¶22

2 / 3

¶23

the Respondent No. 6. vide ANNEXURE P-2. And thereby the Petitioner appointment bearing order No.1983/Esha/Jan.Pan./2011 vide dtd. 11.02.2011, passed by the Chief Executive Officer ,Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri, herein the Respondent No.4, treating her as the member of the Schedule tribe ,be kindly be direct to be lawful, with its all beneficiaries.

¶24

10.3. That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may also be granted in the favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents .”

¶25

2. Pursuant to an advertisement for the post of Anganwadi Worker, the petitioner, respondent No. 6 and other eligible candidates submitted their application forms and after scrutiny, the petitioner was appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri, District Jashpur vide order dated 11.02.2011 at Gram Panchayat Malar Para, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri. Respondent No. 6 challenged the order of appointment of the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector, Jashpur which was allowed vide order dated 30.01.2012 and the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kunkuri was directed to prepare a fresh merit list and issue fresh appointment order within 3 weeks. Thereafter, the order passed by Collector, Jashpur was assailed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, Sarguja, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2013 and the order passed by the Collector, Jashpur was affirmed.

¶26

3. During the course of the argument, it was informed by the learned State counsel that respondent No.6 has expired and till date, the selection committee has not complied with the order passed by the

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

Collector, Jashpur dated 31.01.2012. Mr. Gupta fairly submitted that there is no interim order in the present case.

¶29

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the documents.

¶30

5. From a perusal of the documents, it is apparent that initially the petitioner was appointed to the post of ‘Anganwadi Worker’ vide order dated 11.02.2011 issued by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri. Respondent No. 6 challenged the appointment order before the Collector, Jashpur, and vide order dated 30.01.2012, the appointment order dated 11.02.2011 was canceled and the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri was directed to prepare a fresh merit list, but till date, the order dated 30.01.2012 has not been complied with.

¶31

As informed by the learned State counsel that respondent No. 6 has expired, and there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner too, therefore, the order passed by the Collector, Jashpur and affirmed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division dated 30.01.2012 and 28.06.2013, respectively, are hereby affirmed. The Selection Committee/CEO, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri is directed to comply with the order passed by the Collector, Jashpur dated 31.01.2012 in its letter and spirit, preferably within a period of six months, strictly in accordance with the law, after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the candidates who had applied for the aforesaid post.

¶32

6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶35

Nadim

Kiran Kerketta v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Kerketta v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Savita Katle Vs Janpad Panchayat, Lormi

Khushboo Singh Thakur @ Manogya Singh Thakur Vs Pitambar Singh

Ritesh Kumar Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

M/S Golchha Promoters Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kalyan Prasad Dwivedi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Mr. G.v.j. Rao Vs Coal India Limited and Ors.