LAXMI DEVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(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 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 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.