Chattisgarh High Court
Smt.Laxmi Devi vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 23 ... on 5 July, 2019
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3821 of 2009
Smt. Laxmi Devi, Wife of Koduram Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Village
Bhavarmara Post Bhavarmara, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Woman and Child welfare
Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Directorate Of Panchayat And Social Service, Raipur C.G.
3. The Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon, District. Rajnandgaon C.G.
4. Smt. Manjubala W/o Raju Sahu, R/o Village Bhavarmara, Post
Bhavarmara, Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon Cg
5. Sarpanch / Secretary Village Panchayat Bhavarmara, Tahsil And District
Rajnandgaon Cg
3. Project Officer, Woman And Child Welfare Development, Janpad
Panchayat Rajnandgaon C.G.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon C.G.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Laxmi Kumar Gahwa, Advocate For State : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, PL For Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05/07/2019
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-1 & P-2 dated 30.06.2009 & 30.04.2007 respectively.
2. The facts of the case relevant for disposal of the writ petition is that the recruitment process was initiated for the post of Anganbadi worker. One such centre is a Anganbadi Centre Bhavarmara, Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon. The petitioner as 2 well as respondent No. 4 along with other candidates had applied for the said post. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat vide his order dated 13.11.2006 Annexure P-3 passed an order appointing the petitioner as Anganbadi worker for the said Anganbadi Centre, Bhavarmara. The Respondent No. 4 immediately raised an objection before the Additional Collector in this regard questioning the appointment of the petitioner. The Additional Collector vide his order Annexure P-2 dated 30.04.2007 allowed the objection and set aside the order of the appointment of the petitioner. While passing the order the Additional Collector specifically held that respondent No. 4 in the light of the policy of the State Government dated 06.01.2000 would have got preference and thereby had ordered for the quashing the appointment order of the petitioner and granting of appointment to respondent No. 4. This order was challenged by the petitioner before Director, Panchayat under Section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and also under the provisions of the Rule 5 of the Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995. The Director Panchayat also vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 30.06.2009 rejected the revision of the petitioner affirming the order passed by Additional Collector in appeal.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner was more qualified than respondent No. 4 and taking into consideration this fact the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat had passed an order dated 13.11.2006. It was further the contention of the petitioner that appointment of the petitioner since was made in the light of the policy of the State Government dated 27.05.1996, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be bad in law. Thus, prayed for the 3 setting aside of the of the two orders passed by Additional Collector and that passed by Director, Panchayat and prayed for granting the petitioner continuity in service.
4. On the contrary, State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 4 opposing the petitioner submits that appointment of the petitioner at the first instance was in contravention to the policy of the State Government, so far as the appointment of Anganbadi worker is concerned. According to the counsel for the respondent, State Government vide their policy dated 06.01.2000 had modified the earlier policy of 1996 and had held that for the purpose of appointing Anganbadi Worker preference was always to be given to candidates who is 8th pass and only in the event if the 8th pass candidate being not available then a person with higher qualification be considered for appointment. According to the counsel for the respondent, the appointment of the petitioner thus was apparently bad as per policy prevailing on the date of appointment and therefore the two orders passed by the Additional Collector in appeal and also by Director, Panchayat in a revision does not warrant interference and prayed for rejection of the writ petition.
5. Having heard the contentions put forth of either side and on perusal of records, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer the conditions stipulated for appointment of Anganbadi Worker as per the policy dated 27.05.1996 Clause 1A(6) is relevant clause which for ready reference is being reproduced hereinunder :-
1- fu;qfDr gsrq vgrkZ;sa&
v- vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ%&
vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ ,d efgyk ¼18 ls 44 o"kZ dh vk;q½ ekulsoh dk;ZdrkZ gksxhA eSfVªd ikl dk;ZdrkZvksa dks :i;s 400@& rFkk ukWu eSfVªd dks 4 :i;s 350@& izfrekg ekuns; fn;k tk;sxkA muds p;u esa fuEu fcUnqvkas dk fo'ks"k /;ku fn;k tk;s%& 1- xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2- xxxxxxxxxxxxx 3- xxxxxxxxxxxxx 4- xxxxxxxxxxxxx 5- xxxxxxxxxxxxx 6- D;kasafd vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ dks bl ;kstuk ds varxZr fofHkUu lsok iznku djus dk nkf;Ro gS o blds fy, mUgsa dkQh fjdkMZ j[kuk gksrk gS vr% ;g okaNuh; gS fd dk;ZdrkZ eSfVªd gksA ;fn ;g laHko u gks rks fefMy ikl efgyk fu;qfDr dh tk;s o ;fn og Hkh miyC/k u gks rks ml xzke dh de i<+h fy[kh fdUrq le>nkj efgyk dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sA nwjLFk vkfnoklh {ks=ksa esa tgka lk{kjrk dk izfr'kr cgqr de gS esa fuj{kj fdUrq le>nkj efgyk dh Hkh fu;qfDr nh tk ldrh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa i`Fkd ls fdlh f'kf{kr O;fDr ls vko';d fjdkMZ la/kkfjr djk;k tkuk vko';d gksxk] fdUrq bl ifjfLFkfr esa ,sls O;fDr dks bl dk;Z ds fy, jkf'k dk Hkqxrku dk;ZdrkZ dks ns; ekuns; esa ls dVkSrh dj fd;k tk ldsxk o mUgsa i`Fkd ls dksbZ jkf'k ns; ugha gksxhA
6. Perusal of the record would further show that the said condition specifically has again being modified by the State Government vide circular dated 06.01.2000, wherein the aforementioned clause 6 have been modified as under :-
"lesfdr cky fodkl ifj;kstukvksa ds varxZr vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZvksa ds p;u@fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa lanfHkZr i= }kjk tkjh fd, x, funsZ'kksa dh dafMdk 1¼6½ ds LFkku ij fuEukuqlkj vkSj funsZ'k tkjh fd;s tkrs gSa%& 1- vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ ds p;u ds le; 8oha mRrh.kZ mEehn~okj dks izkFkfedrk nh tk;sA vkBoha ikl efgyk miyC/k u gksus ij gh gk;j lsds.Mªh mRrh.kZ dks fu;qfDr nh tk;sA 2- ;fn ,d ls vf/kd efgyk;sa leku 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk j[krh gks rks fuEu Øe eas izkFkfedrk nh tk;sa %& v- fo/kok c- ifjR;Drk l- vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds mEehn~okj-"5
7. It is this modified policy which was prevalent on the date of appointment of the petitioner i.e. on 13.11.2006. It appears that Chief Executive Officer did not refer to the said modified policy on 06.01.2000 while issuing the appointment.
8. These aspect was infact dealt with by the appellate authority i.e. Additional Collector and again by the Director, Panchayat in the Revision petition and both of them have accepted the fact that it was the policy dated 06.01.2000 which was prevalent and not the previous policy and therefore had held that the appointment of the petitioner to be bad in law.
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, taking note of the policy decision prevalent on the date of appointment, it clearly reflects that it is the policy of 06.01.2000 which was applicable and which was supposed to be invoked by the authorities. This aspect has been dealt with by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. No strong case has been made out by the petitioner with which it could be said that finding of the appellate authority as well as revisional authority are either bad in law or in any manner perverse. The petitioner neither has been able to produce before the Court that on the date of appointment this policy dated 06.01.2000 had further been modified before the appointment order was issued.
10. Given the facts, this Court does not find any merits so far as the writ petition is concerned and writ petition thus fails and is accordingly rejected affirming the order passed by Additional Collector dated 30.04.2007 and the order passed by Revisional Authority i.e. Director, Panchayat dated 30.06.2009.
6
11. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit