Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Rekha Yadav vs Smt. Yugal Kumari on 7 September, 2021
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 2811 of 2011
Order reserved on: 18/08/2021
Order delivered on: 07/09/2021
• Smt. Rekha Yadav, Aged About 22 Years, W/o Jitendra Yadav, R/o Vill.
Kosmarra, Chhuiekhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Yugal Kumari, D/o Bhavdas Manikpuri R/o Village Kosmarra,
Chhuiekhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
2. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Chhuiekhadan, District-
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
3. Project Officer (Pariyozana Adhikari) Integrated Child Welfare Project
(Ekikrit Balvikas Pariyozana), Chhuiekhadan, District-Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
4. Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur , Now Durg Division Durg
Chhattisgarh.
5. Additional Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate.
For Caveator : Mr.R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal with Ms. Nupoor
Sonkar, Advocates.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vipra Sen Agrawal, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Sameer Oraon, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
CAV Order
07/09/2021
1. This petition was earlier decided by this Court vide order dated
23.3.2020. That order was challenged in Writ Appeal No.367/2020.
The learned Division Bench while deciding the writ appeal has
observed and passed order in paragraph No.7 & 8 as follows:-
"7. It was without considering this crucial fact, that the
proceedings were finalized and the orders passed by the
Additional District Collector and Commissioner, Raipur,
Raipur Division vide Annexure P/3 and Annexure P/5 were
set aside by the learned Single Judge, as held in 'paragraph-
13' of the judgment under challenge; virtually without hearing
the Authorities concerned, having not been impleaded in the
party array. Thus, there is denial of opportunity of hearing to
the State and it is to the possible contend that substantial
prejudice has been caused in this regard. On this short
ground itself, the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge
is liable to be set aside and it is ordered accordingly.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition
stands restored to the file. The Registry is directed to list the
writ petition before the appropriate Bench as per roster to
deal with the merit of the case. It is made clear that we have
not expressed anything with regard to the merit of the case.
It is open for the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner to implead
the Authorities concerned who have passed Annexure P/3
and Annexure P/5 orders; upon which event an opportunity
of hearing is to be given to the learned counsel representing
the State/Authorities concerned and the matter could be
finalized accordingly."
2. The direction in the order in writ appeal was only to this extent that
opportunity of hearing is to be given to the learned counsel
representing the State/Authorities concerned, however, all the parties
have made their submissions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner adheres to the argument submitted
earlier in this petition before this Bench.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed fresh reply and it is
submitted that this Court has earlier held that the respondent No.1 had
not filed proper document to show that she was a divorcee. Annexure
R1/1 filed with reply dated 28.1.2021, is the application for
appointment to the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta which mentions, that
the respondent No.1 was a divorcee. The respondent No.1 had also
filed certificate showing her as a divorcee and thus she had entitlement
according to the guidelines for appointment to the post of Anganbadi
Karyakarta. Therefore, there was no case that the proof of divorce of
respondent No.1 was not filed at the initial stage.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in
the case of Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Ors, reported in
(2005) 9 SCC 779 and Food Corporation of India v. Rimjhim, reported
in (2019) 5 SCC 793.
5. Learned State counsel representing respondents No.3, 4 & 5 submits
that the State Government has framed the policy/Circular of
appointment of 'Anganbadi Karyakarta' and 'Anganbadi Sahayika',
which is dated 2.4.2008, and all the appointments are made strictly in
accordance with the said policy. After the publication of advertisement
and calling of applications, the petitioner was appointed in accordance
with the guidelines. After challenge to this order of appointment before
respondent No.5 the appeal was allowed and respondent No.1 was
given appointment, however, consequent to the order of this Court in
this petition dated 23.3.2020, the petitioner has been again given
appointment as 'Anganbadi Karyakarta' for village-Kosmarra after
terminating the appointment of respondent No.1. The petition is
opposed and it is conceded by the learned State counsel, that the
document regarding proof of divorce of respondent No.1 was not filed
at the initial stage of filing application, but the same was filed for the
first time at the appellate stage. The prayer has been made to pass
appropriate orders.
6. This Court has to comply with the order passed on the direction given
by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.367/2020 only, in which, it is
very clearly mentioned that the Division Bench has not expressed
anything with regard to the merit of the case. The direction given was
only to this extent that the State/Authorities be impleaded as parties
and an opportunity of hearing be given to them before finalizing the
matter. Therefore, it is clear that this is not a Review Petition and there
is no direction of the Division Bench to review the order earlier passed
which shows that previous order in this writ petition stands on merits.
The learned State counsel appearing for the State Authorities has
conceded that the documents certifying the status of respondent No.1
as a divorcee was not filed by respondent No.1 at the initial stage of
filing application, regarding which this Court has already observed and
given finding in the previous order. Therefore, after giving opportunity
of hearing to the State counsel represented to the State Authorities, no
reason is found to divulge from the earlier view taken by this Court in
order dated 23.3.2020.The order passed earlier in this writ petition is
confirmed.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Nisha
