SHARDA BAI Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER BILASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been brought praying to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned orders dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Respondent No.1 in Revision Case No.35/B-121/10-11 and order dated 29.03.2010 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Respondent No.2 in Appeal Case No. 12/B-121/07-08 and the order of appointment of the respondent No.6 dated 12.09.2007 (Annexure P-4).

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are these, that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganbadi Worker. Her appointment was challenged by the respondent No.6 in W.P.(S) No.841/2007, that petition was disposed off by order dated 13.02.2007 and the respondent No.2 was directed to reconsider on the claim of the respondent No.6 and pass appropriate order in accordance with the Anganbadi Scheme and law. The respondent No.3 then reconsidered on the case of this appointment by order dated 12.09.2007 (Annexure P-4) and has appointed the respondent No.6 as Anganbadi Worker. The petitioner then preferred a W.P.(S) No.6498/2007, which was disposed off as withdrawn vide order dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P-5) with liberty to file appeal before the appropriate authority. The appeal that was preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.03.2010 (Annexure P-6). Revision that has been preferred before the respondent No.1 has also been dismissed by order dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure P-1).

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was given appointment on the basis of her entitlement that she has secured maximum percentage of marks in Class-8th and that she was a member of scheduled tribe, by order dated 27.01.2007. The reasons that the respondent No.6 was not appointed was this that her BPL card had overwriting and that was not certified. The respondent No.3 has while reconsidering the case of the respondent No.6 on the basis of the direction given by this Court in W.P.(S) 841/2007, totally ignored the previous finding, that the entitlement of the respondent No.6 about being a member of below poverty line was earlier discarded. The respondent No.2 has also cursorily decided the appeal by order dated 29.03.2010 (Annexure P-6) without proper appreciation of facts.