Smt.neetu Ahirwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4257 of 2014

Smt.Neetu Ahirwar W/o Shri Vinod Ahirwar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Bandhatola/ Baigatola, Ward No.10, Dhara, Tah And Ps Badala, Distt Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. The Commissioner, Durg Division, Dist Durg, Cg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. The Collector Kabirdham, Distt Kabirdham, Cg, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶10

4. The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Bodala, Tah Bodala, Distt Kabirdham, Cg, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶11

5. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Bodala, Tah Badala, Distt Kabirdham, Cg, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶12

6. Sita Bai Hathile W/o Shri Munnaram Aged About 35 Years R/o Bandhatola/ Baigatola, Ward No. 11, Tah Badala, Distt Kabirdham, Cg, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding the
		brief of Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.5	:	Mr. Umesh Verma, Advocate holding the brief
		of Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

25.06.2024

Heard.

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 set aside/quash the order dated 22.04.2013 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Collector, Kabirdham and order dated 15.05.2014 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg

¶21

-2-

¶22

respectively, in the interest of justice.

¶23

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Fulwari Angandbadi Worker of Ward No.10, Nagar Panchayat Bodala, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶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 be given.”

¶25

2. The facts of the present case are that a memo was issued by the Office of the Collector, Kabirdham on 12.10.2012 whereby the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and the Project Officers were directed to appoint the Fulwari Anganbadi in remote areas. As per the memo, the concerned Gram Panchayat had to issue a public notice on 15.10.2012. The date of submission of the application was from 15.10.2012 to 18.10.2012, the date of scrutiny was 20.10.2012, and the date of filing of objection was from 22.10.2012 to 25.10.2012. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat had to issue an order of appointment on 30.10.2012. It was also stated in the memo that Anganbadi workers must be residents of the same locality or village. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 23.01.2013 issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Bodala, District Kabirdham (C.G.). An appeal was preferred against the order of appointment by one Sita Bai Hathile before the Collector. The Collector examined the matter and found that neither the petitioner nor Sita Bai Hathile are residents of Ward No. 10, Baigatola, Nagar Panchayat, Bodla therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and the appellant of that case namely, Sita Bai Hathile was also not found eligible. Against the order passed by the Collector, a revision was preferred by the petitioner

¶26

3

¶27

before the Commissioner and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2014. In the present case, an interim order was passed by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2014 and the fresh appointment to the post of Fulbari Anganwadi worker was stayed.

¶28

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a resident of Ward No. 10 and the same is evident from the application submitted by her where she has categorically stated that she stayed at Ward No.10/Baigatola and the findings recorded by the Collector is perverse. He would further submit that without conducting any inquiry, the order was passed by the Collector which was also affirmed by the Commissioner. He would also submit that the order passed by both the authorities is liable to be quashed.

¶29

4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pandey. They would submit that there is a categorical finding recorded by the Collector that the petitioner stayed along with her husband at Ward No. 11 whereas the Anganbadi Centre was proposed at Ward No.10/Baigatola. They would further submit that there is a further observation that Sita Bai Hathile was also staying at Ward No.11. They would also contend that the petitioner has not placed any document to demonstrate that she was a resident of Ward No. 10 and thus the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

6. An advertisement was issued for the appointment of Fulbari Anganwadi worker on 12.10.2012 and the last date for submission of the

¶32

-4-

¶33

application was 18.10.2012 and 19.10.2012. The application was submitted by the petitioner disclosing herself as a resident of Ward No.10/Baigatola where Fulbari Anganbadi was proposed. An appeal was preferred by one Sita Bai Hathile against the appointment of the petitioner before the Collector which was allowed vide order dated 22.04.2013. The Collector has categorically recorded a finding that the petitioner was staying along with her husband at Ward No. 11, Nagar Panchayat Bodla. The findings so recorded by the Collector have been affirmed by the Commissioner. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed any document to demonstrate that she was or is a resident of Ward No. 10 where Fulbari Anganbadi was proposed.

¶34

7. Taking into consideration the fact that there is a concurrent finding with regard to the place of residence of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶35

8. Interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

Rekha

Smt.neetu Ahirwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.neetu Ahirwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Basant Kumar Dahariya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Anjor Singh Painkara Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kamlakant Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Rajendra Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Alok Wilson Vs Church of Christ Miss. of India and Ors.

Anup Kumar Gajbhiye and Ors. Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.