DINESHWARI JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the order dtd. 22/7/2011 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur whereby the Commissioner has affirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh dtd. 27/8/2009 (Annexure-P/2) whereby appointment of the petitioner on the post of Aangan Badi Worker at Aangan Badi Centre, Bhimsendih was cancelled and respondent No.6 was given the said appointment.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Aangan Badi Worker, Bhimsendih by respondent No.5 by order dtd. 13/10/2008. The said appointment was challenged by respondent No.6 by way of appeal under Sec. 91 of the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 on the ground that she is the resident of village Bhimsendih, her marriage was solemnized with one Nand Kumar Jaiswal, resident of the said village and after the marriage, she started residing with her husband. After recording statements of village Kotwar Bhogi Lal, Panch Smt. Sushila and others and after enquiry, respondent No.6 was given appointment on the said post, as she was more meritorious and as per the guidelines for appointment of Aangan Badi Worker issued on 2/4/2008 (Annexure-P/7). As per clause 1.6 d of the said guidelines, for appointment of Aangan Badi Worker, minimum educational qualification is 12th or 11th Board and only in case of non-availability of the suitable candidate, then said educational qualification could be relaxed for a particular centre and the candidate having minimum educational qualification of 10th standard may be appointed. The petitioner has not passed 11th or 12th Board Examination and in the appointment order issued on 13/10/2008, her qualification was mentioned at Sr. No.5 as 'High School passed', whereas respondent No.6 has passed the examination as required under the guidelines, though earlier her candidature was rejected only on the basis that she was not resident of the said village. The order passed by the Additional Collector was further challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which was also dismissed by the impugned order dtd. 22/7/2011. The Commissioner has also observed that respondent No.6 is the only candidate who is possessing minimum qualification of 12th standard and she has also submitted requisite certificate issued by the village Panchayat, Sarpanch and Secretary regarding her domicile. On the complaint, the matter was again enquired into and the statements were also recorded and it was found that respondent No.6 was resident of the village Bhimsendih. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of respondent No.6 was not included in the voter list. Whenever any dispute occurs, the certificate issued by the competent authority has to be taken into consideration, as per clause 1.5 of the guidelines. For the sake of brevity, the said clause of the guidelines issued on 2/4/2008 (Annexure-P/7) reads thus:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_58_LAWS(CHH)3_2024_1.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_58_LAWS(CHH)3_2024_2.jpg</IMG>