SNEHLATA KERKETTA Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dtd. 7/04/2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Sarguja, Ambikapur, whereby cancellation of appointment of the petitioner was upheld.

(2.) The issue pertains to appointment of Anganbadi Worker. The petitioner was appointed vide order dtd. 23/08/2011 as an Anganbadi Worker. Thereafter, she joined her post on 24/08/2011. Being aggrieved by such appointment, the respondent No.7 filed an appeal under Sec. 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Collector challenging the appointment on the ground that the petitioner is not the resident of ward for which she is appointed and the appointment is not in accordance with the law and sought for cancellation. After issuance of notice, primarily objection was raised that it was barred by time. However, subsequently it was held that since the petitioner was not the resident of ward for which she is appointed, as such, the appointment was cancelled and instead the appointment of respondent No.7 was ordered. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under Sec. 91 read with Sec. 4 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, which is under challenge here.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instructions which have been issued by the State by Annexure P-6 dtd. 2/04/2008 the procedure has been laid down for appeal and since the appointment in the instant case was under the Municipalities Act, 1961 as per Annexure P-4, therefore, very filing of appeal before the Collector was without jurisdiction and order is non est. Consequently, the subsequent filing of appeal by the respondent No.7 would not confer any jurisdiction, therefore the entire procedure of cancellation orders are non est and without jurisdiction.