Petitioner challenged orders setting aside her appointment as Anganwadi Worker, alleging form manipulation. This court found no malicious intent or good ground to interfere with concurrent findings that she originally applied for Centre No. 3 but shifted to No. 4. Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
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-
2024:CGHC:30527
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6281 of 2011
Smt. Anita Sahu, W/o. Shri Daniram Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o village Latabod, Tahsil Balod, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Woman & Child Development Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Balod, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3. Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Balod, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4. Block Education Officer, Balod, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
5. Block Medical Officer, Balod, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
6. Mamta Sahu, W/o Lokeshwar Sahu, R/o. Village Latabod, Tahsil Balod, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate
For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2: Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate, For Respondent No.6: Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
13.08.2024
“10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned orders dated 14.06.2011 passed by Upper Collector, Durg (Annexure P/ 12) & the order dated
-2-
05.10.2011 passed by learned Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (Annexure P/13).
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work as Anganbadi Worker of village Latabod of centre no. 4 with regular payment of salary, in accordance with law.
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. ”
It is argued that the petitioner had submitted her application form for Centre No. 4, but it was manipulated by someone, and figure 3 was inserted, which was rounded off by someone with ill intentions. It is further argued that the petitioner had secured 39.73 marks whereas the total marks obtained by respondent No. 6 were 35.64 marks. The petitioner was meritorious to respondent No. 6, therefore, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Centre No. 4 on 04.05.2011. It is also argued that respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector and the
-3-
same was allowed vide order dated 14.06.2011 and that order was affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 05.10.2011; thus, he prayed that the orders passed by the Collector, as well as the Commissioner, are liable to be quashed as there is no document to demonstrate that the manipulation was done by the petitioner herself and it was done with an intent to extend the benefit to the petitioner. He stated that the merit of the petitioner was also not considered by the authorities.
-4-
rounded off and figure 4 was inserted; there is no material to establish that this was done intentionally either by the petitioner or by any other person. The handwriting and the ink used for the modification of the figure are different which shows that figure 3 was rounded off and figure 4 was inserted. There are concurrent findings recorded by the Additional Collector and the Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner had submitted her application form for Centre No. 3, but one Kunti Bai was meritorious to the petitioner, therefore, she changed her centre in the application form. Though the petitioner was meritorious to respondent No. 6, the reason arrived at by the Additional Collector and Commissioner appears to be correct.
Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Nadim
Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders setting aside petitioner's appointment as Anganwadi Worker should be interfered with.
Whether the manipulation in the petitioner's application form warrants quashing of departmental orders.
Smt. Anita Sahu
State of Chhattisgarh
Mamta Sahu
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
