Dismissed¶38

Smt. Prem Bai Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Mar 2026WPS/9571/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganbadi/Anganwadi Worker appointment - Ward No. 20, Kostapara 'A', Raigarh - advertisement dated 12.05.2023 by Project Officer, ICDS Raigarh (Urban) - Clause 12 additional marks for prior experience as Anganwadi Worker/Assistant, BPL category, SC/ST women, widowed/separated/divorced women - final merit list - petitioner awarded 06 experience marks but secured lesser marks than Respondent No. 4 - no material irregularity or illegality in selection - challenge to appointment order dated 06.10.2023 failed - writ petition WPS No. 9571 of 2023 dismissed - High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, order dated 12/03/2026, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad - neutral citation 2026:CGHC:11877.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed. ¶38

Smt. Prem Bai Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was dismissed.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Anganbadi Worker for Ward No. 20, Kostapara 'A' was made without proper scrutiny of documents and in violation of Clause 12 of the advertisement dated 12.05.2023. +2 more

¶33

Court's answer

The criteria provided under Clause 12 of the advertisement, including grant of additional marks for experience and other eligible categories, was uniformly applied to all candidates.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

This Court found no merit in the present petition.

¶33

Key takeaways

The petitioner was duly awarded 06 marks for her experience as Assistant Anganwadi Worker, and the same is clearly reflected in the final merit list issued by Respondent No. 3.ratio¶33
On overall assessment of the marks obtained by the candidates, Respondent No. 4 secured higher marks than the petitioner and was therefore selected for appointment.ratio¶35
In absence of any material irregularity or illegality in the selection process, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.10.2023.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPS No. 9571 of 2023, decided 12/03/2026 by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad: The petitioner challenged the order dated 06.10.2023 of the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Raigarh (Urban), appointing Respondent No. 4 as Anganbadi Worker for Ward No. 20, Kostapara 'A' pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.05.2023, alleging that Respondent No. 4 lacked the requisite qualifications and that Clause 12 of the advertisement (additional marks for prior Anganwadi experience, BPL category, SC/ST women, and widowed/separated/divorced women) was ignored. Held, dismissing the petition: the petitioner was duly awarded 06 marks for her experience as Assistant Anganwadi Worker, as reflected in the final merit list issued by Respondent No. 3; the Clause 12 criteria were uniformly applied to all candidates; on overall assessment Respondent No. 4 secured higher marks than the petitioner and was validly selected; and, absent any material irregularity or illegality in the selection process, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:11877

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 9571 of 2023

¶7

1 - Smt. Prem Bai Sahu W/o Shri Ramkumar Shau, Aged About 44 Years R/o Naya Ganj Kosta Para Ward No. 20, Raigarh District Raigarh Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Director, Women And Child Development, Second Floor, Block A, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Project Officer Integrated Child Development Scheme, Raigarh (Urban) District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Smt. Kewra Singh Dhruw, W/o Late Shri Kamla Singh Dhruw, Aged About 41 Years R/o Naya Ganj Bad Para Ward No. 20, Rigarh District Raigarh Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer.

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

12/03/2026

¶20

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶21

“10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and give appointment as Anganbadi worker for Ward No. 20 Kostapara "A".

¶22

10.2) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

¶23

Brief facts of the case, is that, the present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby the respondent authority has appointed Respondent No. 4, namely Kewra Singh Dhruw, as Anganbadi Worker for Ward No. 20, Kostapara “A”, without properly scrutinizing the documents submitted by Respondent No. 4, despite the fact that she does not possess the requisite qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement dated 12.05.2023. That, Respondent No. 3 had issued the aforesaid advertisement dated 12.05.2023 inviting applications for the post of Anganbadi Worker/Assistant for various wards of Raigarh, pursuant to which both the petitioner as

¶24

¶25

well as Respondent No. 4 submitted their respective applications along with the necessary documents in support of their qualifications. It was specifically provided under Clause 12 of the said advertisement that candidates having prior experience as an Anganbadi Worker/Assistant would be entitled to additional marks, however, the respondent authorities have completely ignored the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement and, in an arbitrary and illegal manner, appointed Respondent No. 4 as Anganbadi Worker for Ward No. 20, Kostapara “A”, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the respondent authorities have illegally appointed respondent No. 4 as Anganbadi Worker for Ward No. 20, Kostapara “A” without properly scrutinizing and verifying the documents submitted by her, despite the fact that respondent No. 4 does not possess the requisite qualification as prescribed under the advertisement dated 12.05.2023. Learned counsel further submits that Clause 12 of the said advertisement specifically provides that candidates having prior experience as Anganbadi Worker or Assistant Anganbadi Worker are entitled to be awarded additional marks; however, the respondent authorities have completely ignored the said provision while granting appointment to respondent No. 4. It

¶27

¶28

is thus argued that the impugned appointment has been made in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement as well as the principles of fairness and transparency in public employment, and therefore the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to urge additional grounds, if necessary, at the time of hearing.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the allegations made by the petitioner are misconceived and devoid of merit. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has been awarded appropriate marks for her experience as an Assistant Anganwadi Worker, which is clearly evident from the final merit list issued by the Respondent No. 3, a copy whereof forms part of the record. The contents of paragraph 9.3 of the petition are vehemently denied. It is submitted that as per Clause 12 of the advertisement dated 12.05.2023, additional marks were to be awarded to candidates who had prior experience as Anganwadi Worker/Assistant Anganwadi Worker, as well as to candidates belonging to Below Poverty Line (BPL) category, women belonging to SC/ST category, and widowed, separated or divorced women. The said criteria were uniformly applied to all eligible candidates who had applied for the post. Further, the contents of paragraph 9.4 are also specifically denied. It is submitted that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 12.05.2023, the petitioner was duly

¶30

¶31

awarded 06 marks under the head of experience for having previously worked as an Anganwadi Worker. However, upon overall evaluation and comparison of the marks obtained by the candidates, the petitioner secured lesser marks than Respondent No. 4 and other candidates in the merit list, and therefore she could not be selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker. The entire selection process has been conducted strictly in accordance with the advertisement and applicable guidelines, leaving no scope for interference.

¶32

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

¶33

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 has been appointed as Anganbadi Worker for Ward No. 20, Kostapara “A” without proper scrutiny of documents and in violation of Clause 12 of the advertisement dated 12.05.2023. However, as submitted by learned counsel for the State, the petitioner was duly awarded 06 marks for her experience as Assistant Anganwadi Worker and the same is clearly reflected in the final merit list issued by respondent No. 3. It has also been explained that the criteria provided under Clause 12 of the advertisement, including grant of additional marks for experience and other eligible categories, was uniformly applied to all candidates. On overall assessment of the marks obtained by the

¶34

¶35

candidates, respondent No. 4 secured higher marks than the petitioner and was therefore selected for appointment.

¶36