Smt. Anjulata Vs Beena Kumari

Smt. Anjulata W/o Hitesh Kumar Jaisawal Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Nagar Panchayat Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Bilaigarh-Sarangarh (C.G.)

¶10

... Petitioner.

¶11

Versus

¶12

1 - Beena Kumari D/o Late Mangturam Kenwat R/o Ward No. 4, Nagar Panchayat Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Bilaigarh-Sarangarh (C.G.)

¶13

2 - Chief Minicipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Bilaigarh-Sarangarh (C.G.)

¶14

3 - Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project, Bilaigarh, District Bilaigarh-Sarangarh (C.G.)

¶15

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶16

5 - Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶17

6 - Collector, Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶18

7 - Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh, District BalodabazarBhatapara C.G.

¶19

... Respondents.

¶20

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate.
For Res No.1	:	None despite repeated calls.
For Res No.2	:	Ms. Katyayni Vishnupriya, Advocate.
For Res No.3 to 7	:	Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Panel Lawyer.

¶21

Page-2 WP(S) No.8841/2023

¶22

(Smt. Anjulata Vs. Beena Kumari & Others)

¶23

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶24

Order on Board

¶25

14/07/2026

¶26

Despite a specific direction issued to respondent No.1 to file a return on 03.07.2026, neither any return been filed nor he is represented by any counsel.

¶27

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

¶28

" 10.1 That, this Hon ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Order dated 16/10/2023, Passed in Revision Case No.65/A-89/2022-23 Passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur arising out of order dated 15/03/2021, passed in Appeal Case No.14/A-89/2018-19, passed by the Collector, District Baloda-Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) arising out of order dated 26/04/2019, passed in Appeal Case No.11/A-89/2018-19, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh, District Baloda-Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.).

¶29

10.2 Any other reliefs)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶30

10.3 Cost of the petition."

¶31

Facts of the case, in brief, are that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure-P/4) issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner and private respondent No.1 submitted applications along with the necessary documents for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta at Bilaigarh, Ward No. 4. After the scrutiny of documents,

¶32

Page-3 WP(S) No.8841/2023

¶33

(Smt. Anjulata Vs. Beena Kumari & Others)

¶34

claims and objections were invited on 13.04.2018 (Annexure-P/6), and subsequently, a Provisional Merit List was issued by the office of the Project Officer (Respondent No.3). Thereafter, the Final Merit List was issued vide Annexure-P/7, in which the petitioner’s name finds place at Serial No. 2 and respondent No. 1’s name finds place at Serial No.1. However, in the Final Merit List a remark stating "documents not selfattested" was mentioned in the column next to the petitioner's name. Subsequently, vide order dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure-P/8), respondent No.1 was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta at Bilaigarh, Ward No. 4.

¶35

3.1) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid appointment order, the petitioner challenged the same in an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara. However, vide order dated 26.04.2019 (Annexure-P/3), the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she had not self-attested her documents, which was held to be contrary to Clause 1.11 of the Instructions dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure-P/10) issued by the State, as well as Clause 3 of the Advertisement (Annexure-P/4).

¶36

3.2) Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, against the order dated 26.04.2019, whereby, Vide order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure-P/2), the Collector observed that the original file pertaining to the concerned recruitment process of Anganwadi Karyakarta had been misplaced, which creates doubt. Consequently, the Collector allowed the petitioner's appeal, set-

¶37

Page-4 WP(S) No.8841/2023

¶38

(Smt. Anjulata Vs. Beena Kumari & Others)

¶39

aside the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh, and held that the petitioner had secured the first position and was entitled to the appointment.

¶40

3.3) In compliance with the order passed by the Collector, respondent No.2 issued a fresh appointment order (Annexure-P/12) on 22.03.2021 in favour of the petitioner and cancelled the appointment of respondent No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the post in the month of March 2021 (as stated by counsel for the petitioner) and has been working on the said post ever since.

¶41

3.4) Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector, respondent No.1 preferred a Revision Petition before the Court of the Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. Vide the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure-P/1), the Upper Commissioner allowed the revision of respondent No.1 on the ground that the Collector had quashed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh, without calling the original file. Consequently, the Upper Commissioner set aside the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Collector, which gave rise to the instant Writ Petition.

¶42

This Court, vide order dated 07.11.2023, stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure-P/1).

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a photocopy of the application vide Annexure-P/5, which was submitted to the respondent authority. A perusal of Column/Para 15.1 of the application form makes it explicit that all the documents filed by the

¶44

Page-5 WP(S) No.8841/2023

¶45

(Smt. Anjulata Vs. Beena Kumari & Others)

¶46

petitioner with the application were self-attested by her, which was also verified by the office of the Project Director, Bilaigarh (respondent No. 3). As such, all documents from 1 to 10 were marked with a checkmark ("√"); therefore, the respondents cannot now contend that the documents filed by the petitioner were not self-attested. He further submits that after the scrutiny of documents, the provisional Merit List (Annexure-P/6) was issued, but it does not contain anything that the petitioner has not self-attest her documents. Instead, this remark was belatedly introduced in the Final Merit List (Annexure-P/7), which is completely unjustifiable. He further submits that scrutiny of the recruitment process itself demonstrates that the petitioner filed the application form along with the necessary documents duly self-attested, despite that she was illegally prevented from securing the appointment. Hence, he prays that the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, quashing the order of the Collector, be set aside.

¶47

Learned counsel for the State and counsel for respondent No.2 have filed separate returns on similar footings. They jointly submit that as per Clause 1.11 of the Instruction/Circular dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure-P/10) issued by the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, all documents submitted by the applicant (petitioner) were required to be self-attested, and this condition was also stipulated in Clause 3 of the Advertisement (Annexure-P/4). They contend that the documents filed by the petitioner were not self-attested. In support of

¶48

Page-6 WP(S) No.8841/2023

¶49

(Smt. Anjulata Vs. Beena Kumari & Others)

¶50

their contention, they draw attention to the application (Annexure-R/2-1) filled by the petitioner. Counsel further submit that the certificates filed by the petitioner did not contain her self-attestation, and it is not visible on any of the certificates. Thus, since the petitioner failed to comply with the condition of recruitment and the instructions issued by the State, her candidature was rightly rejected, and the learned Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh, passed appropriate orders. In view of these submissions, they pray for the dismissal of the writ petition.

¶51

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶52

Annexure-P/4 is the advertisement published by respondent No.3, and Annexure-P/10 is the circular issued by the State (Department of Women and Child Development). In both documents, a condition is specified that the documents filed by the candidate is required to be self-attested. Both parties have filed copies of the application form submitted by the petitioner before the Department as Annexure-P/5, Annexure-R/2-1, and Annexure-R/3-1. Perusal of these documents shows that in the petitioner's application, all the certificates filed by her were self-attested. The application also bears the seal and signature of the Project Officer (respondent No.3).

¶53

Annexure-P/6 is the claim-objection invitation published by the Project Officer, which was prepared after the scrutiny of applications filed by the candidates and affixed to the notice board. However, it appears that when

¶54

Page-7 WP(S) No.8841/2023

¶55

(Smt. Anjulata Vs. Beena Kumari & Others)

¶56

the Provisional Merit List (attached with Annexure-P/6) was prepared, no remark was made regarding the self-attestation of the petitioner, rather, this endorsement was introduced by the Selection Committee only in the Final Merit List (Annexure-P/7). Even if it is assumed that the documents filed by the petitioner not been self-attested, such an endorsement would have been made in the Provisional Merit List (Annexure-P/6). Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the documents filed by the petitioner were not self-attested is not sustainable.

¶57

Furthermore, although photocopies of the application filled out by the petitioner along with her certificates have been filed by the respondents, but those documents clearly appear to be scanned copies of the same. Solely on the basis of these documents, it cannot be held that the documents filed by the petitioner were not self-attested, particularly considering that no such remark was made in the Provisional Merit List (attached with Annexure-P/6) prepared by the Selection Committee.

¶58

As far as the final Merit List (Annexure-P/7) is concerned, a perusal of the same shows that the petitioner secured '35.88' marks, whereas respondent No. secured '35.28' marks. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner secured higher marks than respondent No.1.

¶59

Apart from the above, it is apt to note that ancillary procedural requirements, which do not go to the root of eligibility, should not be used to disqualify a more meritorious candidate. In the present case, the instructions regarding self-attestation published by the respondents are merely directory in nature and cannot be construed as a legally binding

¶60

Page-8 WP(S) No.8841/2023

¶61

(Smt. Anjulata Vs. Beena Kumari & Others)

¶62

and mandatory rule, particularly when the candidate has secured the first position on the basis of her marks.

¶63

In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, is not sustainable and same is hereby set aside. The order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Collector, BalodabazarBhatapara, appointing the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta, is upheld, and she shall be permitted to continue working on the said post.

¶64

The Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶65

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶66

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶67

Ajay

Smt. Anjulata v. Beena Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anjulata v. Beena Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh Chhabda Vs Smt. Neeta Mehar

Satya Prakash Verma Vs R. P. Jain

Manohar Lal Tiwari Vs Ramesh Khandey

Ravindra Kumar Baiga Vs Shri D. Rahul Venkat (Ias)

Manoj Sahu Vs Fagulal Gupta

Beauty @ Sonali Banerjee Vs Rathindra Nath Banerjee