Smt. Savitri Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

2026:CGHC:4993

NAFR

AVINASH SHARMA

Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.02.11 10:19:37 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 2896 of 2023

¶8

Smt. Savitri Baghel W/o Shri Chandra Kumar Baghel, Aged About 47 Years R/o, Village Palari Tahsil Gurur, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchya And Village Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2. Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service, Gurur, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Gurur, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

4. Ku. Kajal Kurre D/o Late Dwarika Prasad Kurre, Aged About 29 Years R/o, Village Palari Tahsil Gurur, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr. Ashok Patil, Advocate.
For State/Respondents No.1 to 2	: Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L.
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate.

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

29/01/2026

1. Heard.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the

¶23

Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:-

¶24

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 13.12.2022 filed as annexure-P/1 passed by the respondent

¶25

2

¶26

No.1 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

¶27

10.2 That the appointment order of the respondent No.4 may be declared as illegal which is filed as annexure-P/5

¶28

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper. ”

¶29

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4, as ‘Anganbadi Karyakarta’ before the concerned Collector. After perusal of the record as well as hearing the parties, the Collector has dismissed the said appeal stating that the order of appointment in respect of the respondent No.4 is in accordance with law, which is not required to be interfered. Further, the order passed by the Collector was challenged before the concerned Commissioner by filing revision, the same is also dismissed by the concerned Commissioner holding that the order passed by the Collector is in accordance with law, which is not required to be interfered with. The petitioner, thereafter, approached before the State Government and the State Government has also confirmed the said order and has stated that there is no illegality in appointment of respondent No.4, as ‘Anganbadi Karyakarta’ . The petitioner challenges the aforesaid order stating that all the authorities have committed illegality and it is against the prescribed guidelines for appointment of the ‘Anganbadi Karyakarta’. The respondent No.4 is not the resident of the concerned village for which the ‘Anganbadi Karyakarta’ was appointed and this vital aspect has not been considered by the authorities concerned.

¶30

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respective respondents have jointly submitted that the order passed by the concerned Collector, Commissioner as well as the State Government are in accordance with law. All the authorities have concurrently held that there is no illegality in

¶31

3

¶32

appointing respondent No.4 as ‘Anganbadi Karyakarta’ , it is in accordance with law.

¶33

5. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully.

¶34

6. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Anganbadi Karyakarta for village Palari Tehsil Gurur, District Balod C.G. which was made vide order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad panchayat Gurur. The said appointment was challenged by the petitioner before Collector, Balod on the ground that order of appointment of Respondent No.4 is not in accordance in law and the candidature of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected holding that she has not completed 10 years of service as Anganbadi Sahaika. The Collector, Balod held that as petitioner has not completed 10 years of service as Anganbadi Sahaika, her candidature has rightly been rejected and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. On being aggrieved by the said order of Collector, Balod, the petitioner challenged the said order passed by the Collector, Balod before the Additional Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg C.G. who vide order dated 11.07.2018 confirmed the order passed by the Collector Balod while holding that there is no illegality in the said order. The petitioner further challenged the order dated 11.07.2018 before the Special Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, in which, after considering entire aspect of the matter, the Special Secretary also rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of her services as Anganbadi Sahaika in order to be qualified for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta.

¶35

7. From bare perusal of the record, it appears that all the authorities have concurrently held that the respondent No.4 has rightly been appointed as ‘Anganbadi Karyakarta’ and there is no illegality as such. Though the petitioner has tried to raise a dispute that respondent No.4 is not the resident

¶36

4

¶37

of the said village from which the ‘Anganbadi Karyakarta’ is to be appointed. However, from perusal of the orders, it does not appear that any illegality or perversity has been committed by the respondent authorities while rejecting the claim of the petitioner and as the petitioner has not come out with any good ground which can be appreciated at this stage, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶40

Avinash/Deepti Jha

Smt. Savitri Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitri Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Alma Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A. K. Patre Vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Pramila Pandey

Ram Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Savita Miller