Smt. Revti Bai vs Additional Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 3770 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                        NAFR

     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                WA No. 137 of 2021

                      (Judgment reserved on 25.11.2021)

                           (Delivered on 17.12.2021)

      Smt. Revti Bai W/o Late Sanjay Kumar Aged About 35 Years
      Resident of Village Rampur , Tahsil Kartala, District Korba
      Chhattisgarh.                                 --- Appellant

                                   Versus

   1. Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur District : Bilaspur,
      Chhattisgarh

   2. Collector Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh.

   3. District Programme Officer Women and Child Development, Korba,
      District Korba Chhattisgarh.

   4. Project Officer Unified Child Development Project Kartala, District
      Korba Chhattisgarh.

   5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat , Kartala, District Korba
      Chhattisgarh.

   6. Smt. Sharda Bai W/o Jawahar Lal Aged About 34 Years R/o Village
      Rampur,    Tahsil    Kartala,  District Korba      Chhattisgarh.
                                                    --- Respondents

For the Appellant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.

For the State/R-1 to R-4 : Mr. Ishan Verma, Panel Lawyer.

For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Shailendra Bajpai with Mr. F.S.

Khare, Advocates,

D.B : Hon'ble Shri Justice Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, Judge.

CAV JUDGMENT

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J

1. The challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dated

16.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(227)

No.6512 of 2011 (Annexure A-1) whereby the writ petition filed

by the petitioner Sharda Bai was allowed and she was

reinstated on the post of Anganbadi worker which was made by

virtue of appointment order dated 27.01.2007. By the judgment,

the learned Single Judge has quashed the removal order of

Sharda Bai and in furtherance it was ordered to appoint the

petitioner to the post of Anganbadi worker. The learned Single

Judge had further set aside the order dated 29.03.2010 passed

by the Collector in appeal which was affirmed in revisional order

dated 17.07.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner.

2. Being aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge, Revti Bai,

who was respondent no.6 in W.P(227) No.6512/2011 has filed

this writ appeal. The writ petition was filed by Smt. Sharda Bai

(respondent no.6 herein this appeal) stating that she was

appointed to the post of Anganbadi worker. The requisite

qualification, as prescribed in the Policy dated 02.01.2006

which is relevant for adjudication of the matter is reproduced

hereinbelow :

(1) fu;qfDr dh vgZrk;sa & ¼v½ vka- ck- dk;ZdrkZ & vkW- ck- dk;ZdrkZ ,d efgyk ¼18&44 o"kZ dh vk;q½ ekulsoh dk;ZdrkZ gksxhA eSfVªd ikl dk;ZdrkZvksa dks :- 1000 @& rFkk ukueSfVªd dks :i;s [email protected]& izfr ekg ekuns; fn;k tkosxkA muds p;u esa fuEu fcUnqvksa dk fo'ks"k /;ku fn;k tkosA ¼1½ mEehnokj mlh [email protected] dh fuoklh ,oa xzke iapk;[email protected] iapk;r dh fuokZpd lwph esa ntZ ernkrk gksuh pkfg;s] ftl [email protected] esa vkaxuckM+h [kksyh tkuh izLrkfor gSA fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa ml [email protected] ckgj dh efgyk dks dk;ZdrkZ ds :i esa u j[kk tk;sA ¼2½ vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZvksa ds fy;s p;u dh tkus okyh efgyk LFkkuh; leqnk; dks Lohdk;Z gks rFkk mlesa usr`Ro iznku djus dh {kerk gks rkfd og efgyk e.My dk xBu dj ldsA ¼3½ mEehnokj ljdkjh deZpkjh vFkok iapk;rh jkt [email protected]; fudk; ds fuokZfpr vFkok euksuhr lnL; vFkok muds lxs lacaf/k;ksa dks

vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ esa fu;qfDr ugha fn;k tk ldrkA bl vk'k; dk lacaf/kr ls 'kiFk i= ysuk vfuok;Z gksxkA ¼4½ vkfne tkfr dY;k.k foHkkx }kjk lapkfyr 'kkykvksa fo'ks"kdj vkJe 'kkykvksa esa mRrh.kZ gksus okyh ,oa fu/kkZfjr vgZrk j[kus okyh vuqlwfpr [email protected] tutkfr dh efgykvksa dks muds xzke dh vkaxuckM+h esa dk;[email protected];dk ds fjDr inksa ij fu;qfDr esa izkFkfedrk nh tkosA ¼5½ fu;qfDr esa fo/[email protected];Drk efgykvksa dks loksZPp izkFkfedrk nh tkos rnkuqlkj fuEu ifjokj ds efgykvksa dks fo'ks"k izkFkfedrk nh tkos & ¼v½ xjhch js[kk ds uhps thou ;kiu djus okys ifjokj ¼c½ vuqlwfpr [email protected] tkfr ds ifjokj ¼6½ vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ dks bl ;kstuk ds varxrZ fofHkUu lsok;sa iznku djus dk nkf;Ro gS o blds fy;s mUgsa dkQh fjdkMZ j[kuk gksrk gSA vr% ;g okaNuh; gS fd dk;ZdrkZ eSfVªªd gks ;fn ;g laHko u gks rks fefMy ikl efgyk dh fu;qfDr dh tk;s] ;fn og Hkh miyC/k u gks rks ml xzke dh de i<+h&fy[kh fdUrq le>nkj efgyk dh fu;qfDr dh tkosA nwljs dk;ZdrkZ esa tgka lk{kjrk dk izfr'kr de gS ogka fuj{kj fdUrq le>nkj efgyk dh fu;qfDr Hkh dh tk ldrh gSA ¼7½ vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ ds p;u ds le; 8 oha mRrh.kZ mEehnokj dh izkFkfedrk nh tk;sA 8 oha ikl efgyk miyC/k u gksus ij gh gk;j lsds.Mjh dks fu;qfDr nh tk;sA ;fn ,d ls vf/kd efgyk;sa leku 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk j[krh gks rks fuEu dze esa izkFkfedrk nh tk;s %& ¼v½ fo/kok] ¼c½ ifjR;Drk] ¼l½ vuqlwfpr [email protected] tu tkfr ds mEehnokjA ¼8½ uxjh; {ks=ksa esa vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ dk eSfVªªdqysV gksuk vfuok;Z gSA

3. The appointment of Sharda Bai was resolved in a meeting of

Gram Panchayat on the ground that she was holder of BPL

Card. Thereafter she was selected to the post of Anganbadi

worker at Mudkua, Premnagar on 27.01.2007. The appellant

herein also applied for appointment to the post of Anganibadi

worker but she was not selected on the ground that she was not

having valid BPL Card and eventually respondent no.6 Sharda

Bai was appointed as Anganbadi worker. The said appointment

of Sharda Bai was challenged by the Revati Bai by filing

W.P.No.841 of 2007. The said writ petition came to be disposed

vide order dated 13.02.2007 whereby direction was issued to

the Collector to look into the allegation made by petitioner Revati

Bai and pass an appropriate order in accordance with

Aanganbadi Scheme and law. Consequently, the Project

Officer, Unified Child Development Project conducted an in-

house enquiry and the petitioner was asked to submit her

explanation by the target date of 27.08.2007. Subsequently, the

District Programme Officer, Woman and Child Development

reconsidered the case of appointment by order dated

12.09.2007 and cancelled the appointment of Sharda Bai and

appointed appellant Revti Bai as Anganbadi worker.

4. Against that order, Sharda Bai preferred a writ petition bearing

WPS No.6498 of 2007 which came to be disposed off vide

order dated 14.11.2007 wherein liberty was granted to the

petitioner to avail the remedy of statutory appeal before the

concerned authority. Thereafter, appeal was preferred by

Sharda Bai, the initial appointee, and vide order dated

29.03.2010 (Annexure P-6) the Collector dismissed the appeal

with an observation that the High Court of Chhattisgarh has

found the petition preferred by the Revati Bai to be correct and

accordingly he directed for appointment of Revati Bai to the post

of Anganbadi worker. Thereafter the revision was preferred by

Sharda Bai before the Additional Commissioner and the

Additional Commissioner vide order dated 11.07.2011 dismissed

the revision and against that, the writ petition was preferred

which was allowed by the learned single Judge.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Revati Bai would submit that

among others, she and Sharda Bai both participated in the

process of appointment to the post of Anganbadi worker but the

candidature of appellant was not considered only on the ground

that certain correction of word was existing in the BPL Card and

as such, her candidature was wrongly rejected. It is submitted

that as per the new policy of the State of Chhattisgarh dated

02.01.2006, the first preferential right was granted to the BPL

Card Holder and the second preference would be given to the

Scheduled Tribe Candidate. It is stated Revati Bai being placed

in the category of below- poverty-line (BPL), she was entitled to

hold the post instead of Sharda Bai. It is further contended that

in the order of merit list of selection, Revati Bai would surge

ahead of respondent Sharda Bai as she was not holder of BPL

Card. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge

has failed to take into consideration such preferential right of the

appellant over the respondent. As such, the order of

appointment issued in favour of the appellant by the Collector by

cancelling the appointment of Sharda Bai was well merited and

ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single

Judge.

6. Per contra, Mr. Shailendra Bajpai learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.6, would submit that the appellant has not filed

any BPL Card before any authority to claim the preferential right.

He would submit that the documents filed before this Court too

would show that it is not beyond any suspicion and the

certificate of Gram Panchayat would reveal that the BPL card on

which reliance is placed by the appellant is an outcome of fraud.

He would further submit that on the earlier round of litigation, no

specific direction was given by the High Court in WPS No.

6498/2007 to the extent that appellant Revati Bai should be

appointed in place of Sharda Bai whereas the order of the

Collector dated 29.03.2010 has wrongly noted the fact that in a

petition filed by Revti Bai before the High Court, it was found

that the contention of Revati Bai in WPS No.841/2007 was

correct and directed for appointment of Revati Bai. Therefore,

the initial appointment order of Revati Bai itself has suffered

illegality which has been rectified by the learned single Judge.

He would further submit that while setting aside the appointment

of Sharda Bai, no opportunity of hearing was given to her. The

order would show that in continuation on wrong premises, the

order of appointment of Revati Bai was passed. Therefore, the

order of learned Single Judge is well merited and does not call

for any interference.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is a long

drawn litigation before different fora. Initially, after appointment

of Sharda Bai, it was challenged before the High Court in WPC

No. 841 of 2007 wherein the High Court on 13.02.2007 has

passed the following order :-

"Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Collector Korba/respondent no.2 is directed to look into the allegation made by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with Anganbadi Scheme and law".

8. A perusal of aforesaid order would show that the High Court

directed respondent No.2 therein i.e., Collector, Korba, to look

into the allegations made by petitioner Revati Bai and pass an

appropriate order in accordance with the Anganbadi Scheme

and law. Thereafter the show cause notice was issued to

Sharda Bai and eventually the order of cancellation of

appointment of Sharda Bai came to be passed on 12.09.2007

and thereby appellant Revati Bai was appointed.

9. There is nothing on record to show that any enquiry was held or

any opportunity of hearing was given to Sharda Bai before such

appointment came to an end. The same having been

challenged before the Collector in appeal, the Collector by its

order dated 29.03.2010 observed that Sharda Bai worked as

Anganbadi worker for 9 months and further went on to record

that the High Court while hearing the writ petition filed by Revati

Bai found the allegations levelled by Ravati Bai to be correct and

had directed the State to appoint Revati Bai as Anganbadi

worker. Thereby, Appellant Revati Bai was appointed as

Anganbadi worker by cancelling the appointment of Sharda Bai

and consequently the appeal filed by respondent Sharda Bai

was dismissed.

10. The reasons assigned in the order of termination passed by the

District Programme Officer on 12.09.2007 and subsequently in

the order passed by the Collector on 29.03.2010 that the

cancellation of appointment order of Sharda Bai is done in

pursuance of the High Court order is completely based on

presumption and no such directions were given in the order of

the High Court. The High Court by order dated 13.07.2007 has

only directed to make enquiry and pass an appropriate order in

accordance with the Anganbadi Scheme and law. As such the

facts noted by the Collector and other Officer that the allegations

of Revati Bai were found to be correct and the High Court has

directed for appointment of Revati Bai are ab-initio void and

illegal. No such direction was ever existing on the face of orders

passed by this Court. The basis on which the appellant

stepped into shoes of Anganbadi worker has no legal

background. The order passed by the learned single Judge

whereby the order of cancellation of appointment of Sharda Bai

was set aside, is required to be upheld for the reason that

before cancellation of appointment, no opportunity of hearing

was given by way of enquiry. The facts would show that the rule

of audi alteram partem was not followed in its true spirit and

instead, findings were recorded on presumption and perverse

understanding of the order of the High Court resulting in

cancellation of appointment of Shrada Bai.

11. Indisputably, Respondent Shrarda Bai was a member of the

Scheduled Aboriginal Tribe, which is one of the criteria that is

required for the appointment of Anganbadi worker. The

appellant only claims that she belongs to BPL category and not

a member of Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, when the appointment

of respondent no.6 was on the ground that she was more

eligible for the reason that she had secured more marks, the

said opinion cannot be interdicted by judicial interference. That

apart, the BPL card on which the appellant claims her

preferential right is seriously disputed by respondent Sharda

Bai and the documents which are filed before this Court in Writ

Appeal and the documents on which the reliance has been

placed to show the appellant is holder of a BPL card cannot be

taken as conclusive proof.

12. Consequently, after due consideration of the facts and

circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for

any interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of

merit, is dismissed.

                   Sd/-                                    Sd/-
            Arup Kumar Goswami                        Goutam Bhaduri
               Chief Justice                               Judge




Rao