Smt. Shoba Sonwani vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7048 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                        NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             WA No. 372 of 2020
    Smt. Shoba Sonwani W/o Ramfal Sonwani Aged About 35 Years
    Caste- Mehar, Resident Of Chorbhatti, Tahsil- Pathariya, District-
    Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
                                                                ---- Petitioner
                                   Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child
      Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh
   2. The Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
   3. The Collector, Mungeli District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
   4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pathariya, District- Mungeli,
      Chhattisgarh
   5. Project Officer Integrated Child Development Scheme, Pathariya,
      District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
   6. Mamati Diwaker W/o Shri Tulsi Diwaker Aged About 40 Years Caste-
      Satnami, Resident Of Chorbhatti, Tahsil- Pathariya, District- Mungeli,
      Chhattisgarh
                                                         ---- Respondents

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate.

Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

23/11/2022

Heard Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, learned counsel, appearing for the

appellant. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government

Advocate, appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 5 as well as Mr. Anchal

Kumar Matre, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 6.

2. The present appeal is directed against an order dated 02.09.2020

passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 3502/2020, whereby the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

3. The matter relates to appointment of an Anganbadi Worker. The

respondent No. 6 was appointed as Anganbadi Worker.

4. Mr. Saini submits that the learned Single Judge confined

consideration of the case only with regard to grant of 6 marks to the

respondent No. 6 on account of she being a person belonging to the below

poverty line (for short, BPL) category, but had not adverted to the point

argued that the authorities had not awarded 6 marks to the appellant,

though she also belongs to the BPL category. It is submitted that him that

even if it is conceded that the respondent No. 6 is entitled to 6 marks, if the

appellant is awarded 6 marks, the appellant will rank superior to the

respondent No. 6. He has drawn our attention to paragraph 8.4 and 9.5 of

the writ petition in this connection.

5. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 5 submits that though such a

contention is raised in the writ petition, it is not known as to whether any

such submission was advanced before the learned Single Judge as there

is no reflection of the same in the order under assailment.

6. Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel, appearing for the

respondent No. 6 also endorses the said submission of Mr. Sharma.

7. Mr. Sharma further submits that the petitioner had not raised any

objection with regard to non-granting of 6 marks to the appellant in his

objection dated 20.05.2015 to which Mr. Saini responds to the effect that

the appellant was not aware that she has been denied 6 marks.

8. There is no dispute that in the writ petition, denial of 6 marks to the

appellant was pleaded by the appellant.

9. A perusal of the grounds of appeal, more particularly, at paragraph

(v) and (vi) would give an impression that such a contention was raised

before the learned Single Judge.

10. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the

aforesaid aspect needs to be considered by the learned Single Judge. We,

however, make it clear that the findings recorded by the learned Single

Judge with regard to entitlement of the respondent No. 6 to 6 marks has

remained undisturbed and the consideration will be confined only as to

whether the appellant is also entitled to 6 marks.

11. With the above observation and direction, the writ appeal is partly

allowed. The matter stands remanded to the learned Single Judge for

consideration. Registry will list this case on 09.01.2023 before the Bench

having the roster.

12. In compliance of the order dated 17.10.2022, Mr. Sharma had

produced the application form with enclosures of the respondent No. 6.

The same is returned back to him.

13. Since the writ petition was disposed of on the first date of listing, the

respondents would be at liberty to file response to the writ petition before

the next date fixed.

14. No cost.

                        Sd/-                                           Sd/--
                (Arup Kumar Goswami)                             (Sanjay Agrawal)
                    CHIEF JUSTICE                                   JUDGE
Amit