Smt. Paratima Devi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2024:CGHC:32419

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 717 of 2016

¶6

Smt. Paratima Devi W/o Arvind Kumar, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Anandpur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh The Secretary, Woment And Child Development Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶12

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, Head, Office Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶13

5. Project Officer, Intergrated Women And Child Development Project Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶14

6. Ku. Armila D/o Shivnath Khairwar, R/o Village Anandpur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner	: Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate.
For State	: Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, P. L.
For Respondent No.4	: None.
For Respondent No.6	: Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate.

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Judgment On Board

¶19

27/08/2024

¶20

1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division dated 11.01.2015 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj dated 25.06.2014 was affirmed.

¶21

2 / 6

¶22

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued on 18.10.2010 for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Centre Anandpur (Patelpara), Gram Panchayat Barwahi, District Sarguja. The petitioner being a resident of Gram Panchayat Barwahi submitted her application on 29.10.2010 along with the relevant documents. She was married to one Arvind Kumar in the year 2007. Thereafter, she applied for a domicile certificate before the competent authority i.e. Naib Tehsildar, Ramanujganj which was issued on 28.10.2010. The petitioner was meritorious and she got selected and an order of appointment was issued in her favor on 11.01.2011. He further submits that respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj on the ground that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification on the date of advertisement and she was not a resident of Village Anandpur, Gram Panchayat Barwahi. In between, an inquiry was conducted and the domicile certificate of the petitioner was cancelled by Naib Tehsildar, Ramanujganj on 04.11.2011. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO(R), Ramanujganj and the same was dismissed but liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the authority afresh. He argues that the petitioner approached the Naib Tehsildar along with the relevant documents and a fresh domicile certificate was issued in her favour on 03.08.2012. It is also argued by Mr. Narayan that according to Clause 1.5 of the policy of the State Government for the appointment of Anganwadi Workers, a candidate should be a resident of the Village or Ward where the Anganwadi Centre is proposed. He further argues that according to Clause 1.5 (A), a candidate may submit a copy of the voter list showing his or her name as proof of residence; or a certificate

¶23

3 / 6

¶24

issued by the Sarpanch/Project Officer/Ward Member of the concerned local body describing the complete address and in case of any complaint, the decision of the competent authority would be final. It is also submitted by Mr. Narayan that a complaint was made and the same should have been referred to the concerned Tehsildar for the appropriate decision but the Collector himself cancelled the appointment of the petitioner which is per se illegal. He contends that the Commissioner also committed an error of law in affirming the order passed by the Collector. He further contends that the petitioner has produced a copy of the voter list; domicile certificate and certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Barwahi as proof of residence along with her application form but those documents were not taken into consideration by the Collector and Commissioner. Thus, he prays that orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner are not sustainable in the eyes of the law and are liable to be quashed.

¶25

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents opposes. They submit that the petitioner was not a resident of Village Anandpur and in her application form; she has categorically stated that she was a resident of Gram Panchayat Barwahi, therefore she was not entitled to be appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Village Anandpur. It is also argued that the certificate was not issued at the time of filling the application form and it was subsequently issued by the competent authority and later on, it was cancelled by the Collector. They further submit that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the SDO(R), Ramanujganj against the cancellation of her domicile certificate and the same was also

¶26

4 / 6

¶27

dismissed and liberty was granted in her favour to approach the competent authority. They contend that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj as well as the Commissioner, Surguja Division; therefore this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

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

¶29

5. With regard to the domicile, requirement is enumerated in Clause 1.5 of the policy document and the same is reproduced herein below:-

¶30

1.5 जि�सग्राममेंआंगनबाड़ीकेन्द्रखोला�ानाप्रस्तावि�तहैया�हाँपदरि"क्तहै, आ�ेविदकाउसीभ्रामकीए�ंनग"ीयक्षेत्रकेलिलएउसी�ार्ड, कीस्थानीयविन�ासीहोना चाविहये।आ�ेदनपत्रके.. साथविनयासकेसंबंधमेंविनम्नलिललिखतमेंसेकोईएक दस्ता�े�संलग्नविकया�ा�ेगाः-

¶31

क . उसग्राम/नग"ीयक्षेत्रकीअद्यतनमतदातासूचीमेंनामद�, होतोआ�ेदनपत्रमें उसकेकमांककाउल्लेखक" प्रतितलिलविपलगाई�ा�े। ख . संबंतिधतग्रामपंचायतकेस"पंचतथासतिच�व्दा"ासंयुक्तहस्ताक्षरि"तअथ�ा पट�ा"ीतथानग"ीयविनकायोंमेंकी�ाने�ालीविनयुविक्तमें�ार्ड, पार्ष,दअथ�ापट�ा"ी द्वा"ा�ा"ीप्रमाण-पत्रजि�समें�ार्ड, ए�ंग्राममेंविन�ास"त"हनेकापतासविहतस्पष्ट उल्लेखहो। टीपः यविदविकसीआ�ेदककेविन�ासकेस�BधमेंकोईशिDकायतप्राप्तहोतीहैतोउस आ�ेदककेविन�ासकेसत्यापनहेतुसक्षमअतिधका"ीद्वा"ा�ा"ीविन�ाससंबंधीप्रमाण पत्रहीमान्यविकया�ायेगा।

¶32

In the present petition, the petitioner has produced her application form along with mark sheets and identity cards issued by the Directorate of Employment & Training, Ambikapur and the caste certificate issued by Naib Tehsildar dated 28.10.2010 according to which, she is a resident of Village Anandpur. In the BPL ration card, domicile certificate issued by Naib Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Barwahi and copy of the voter list of Village Anandpur, her name appears at S. No. 75. In the Voter ID Card issued by Election Commission of India

¶33

5 / 6

¶34

her place of residence is shown as Village Anandpur.

¶35

6. The petitioner had submitted a domicile certificate dated 28.10.2010 which was duly issued by the competent authority showing her residence to be Village Anandpur. The petitioner worked in the post of Anganwadi Worker from 11.04.2011 till 25.06.2014. In between, the domicile certificate of the petitioner was cancelled by Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 11.04.2011 and against that order, the appeal was preferred before SDO(R), Ramanujganj. Though the appeal was dismissed, liberty was granted in favour of the petitioner to approach the competent authority afresh. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner approached Naib Tehsildar, Ramanujganj to issue a domicile certificate on 03.08.2012 which is still in existence. However, the Collector did not consider the copy of the voters’ list along with the application form while entertaining the appeal preferred by respondent No. 6.

¶36

7. The domicile certificate is not the sole criterion to establish the place of residence according to Clause 1.5 of the policy of State Government and there were other documents filed by petitioner in support of her domicile certificate. When a complaint was made with regard to the domicile certificate, the Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj ought to have referred the matter to the competent authority but the same was not done. The SDO(R) dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Naib Tehsildar and when the petitioner approached the authority, a domicile certificate was issued on 03.08.2012, meaning thereby the petitioner was a resident of Village Anandpur, Gram Panchayat Barwahi. The Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj also ignored the voters’ list and the certificate issued by

¶37

6 / 6

¶38

the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Barwahi while allowing the appeal so preferred by respondent No. 6.

¶39

8. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, orders passed by the Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj and Commissioner, Surguja Division are not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, both orders are hereby quashed.

¶40

9. The petitioner shall be re-instated in service on the post of Anganwadi Worker pursuant to the original appointment order dated 11.04.2011. With regard to arrears of salary, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the appointing authority showing that she was not gainfully employed anywhere. If such a representation is moved, the authority concerned is directed to decide such representation strictly in accordance with law.

¶41

10. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of .

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶44

Ajinkya

Smt. Paratima Devi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Paratima Devi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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. Geeta Meshram Vs Advocate General

Janpad Panchayat Lakhanpur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dhirendra Vishwakarma Vs Rasheed Hasmi

Bishnu Pada Ghosh Vs Bank Of Maharashtra And Ors.

Premshankar Brahmbhatta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt. Mini Bai Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.