SURESHANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh in Revision No. 48/A-89/2007-08. Vide the impugned order the Additional Collector has set-aside the order of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner dated 20.06.2007 and in turn ordered for appointment of the respondent No.4 as the Anganbadi worker.

(2.) The brief facts of the writ petition is that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore, District Raigarh vide order dated 20.06.2007 appointed the petitioner as the Anganbadi worker for the Anganbadi centre at Kensara (Deepapara) under Janpad Panchayat Pussore, District Raigarh. The said appointment order was set-aside by the impugned order by the Additional Collector in a suo moto revision initiated by the Additional Collector.

(3.) The finding of the Additional Collector is that the appointment of the petitioner was ignoring the guidelines and regulations framed by the State Government with respect to the appointment of Aanganbadi worker. The finding of the Additional Collector is also that under the guidelines and regulations for appointment of Anganbadi worker, the regulations prescribe that if there are more than one candidate suitable for the said post, then priority should be given firstly to a widow, second to a deserter and then to the candidate belonging to the schedule caste/schedule tribe category. According to the Additional Collector, the respondent No.4 undisputedly was a widow, therefore preference ought to had been given to the respondent No.4 and for this reason the appointment of the petitioner was set-aside and directed the authorities to issue appointment in favour of the respondent No.4. It is this order, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.