Chattisgarh High Court
Suman Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 September, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:48233-DB
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.09.19
19:22:42
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 687 of 2025
1 - Suman Yadav Daughter Of Ramdas Aged About 24 Years Caste-
Ahir, Resident Of Village- Sitarampur, Police Station - Balrampur,
Tahsil - Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh),
District - Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal
Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Surguja
(Chhattisgarh), District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
3 - The Collector Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj
(Chhattisgarh), District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
2
4 - The Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project,
Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District
Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur,
District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District Balrampur,
Chhattisgarh
6 - Sarita Yadav Wife Of Mukesh Yadav Caste - Ahir, Resident Of
Sitarampur, Tahsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj
(Chhattisgarh), District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellant :Shri Lalit Jangde, Advocate.
For Respondents/State :Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
19.09.2025
1. Heard Shri Lalit Jangde, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate for the
State.
2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing
the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition WPS No.1454/2021, whereby the writ petition
preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be
dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be
referred as per their status before the learned Writ Court.
3. The brief facts of the case is that an advertisement was issued
on 10.4.2017 for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Centre
Karampani, Gram Panchayat Sitarampur, Tahsil Balrampur,
District Balrampur-Ramanujganjon. According to learned
counsel for the appellant seven candidates participated in the
recruitment process, and after due verification of the
documents submitted by the candidates, the petitioner was
appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker vide order dated
25.1.2018. According to learned counsel, respondent No.6
challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the
Collector, which was allowed vide order dated 31.7.2019. The
said order was affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated
4.1.2021. Against the order dated 4.1.2021, the WPS No.
1454/2021 was preferred. According to learned counsel,
respondent No.6 failed to submit the requisite domicile
certificate along with her application form; therefore, her
candidature was not considered. He would also contend that
both the Collector and the Commissioner failed to appreciate
this crucial fact.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned
Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order
impugned and has observed as under:-
"5. The petitioner has raised only one ground that
respondent No.6 was not a resident of the Gram
Panchayat Sitarampur and failed to submit the
required residence certificate along with her
application form, and therefore, her name was not
considered for appointment to the post of Anganwadi
Worker.
6. However, perusal of the certificate issued by the
Sarpanch and Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Sitarampur
would show that it was issued strictly in accordance
with clause 1.5 of the circular dated 2.4.2008. The
selection committee did not consider this certificate,
and the petitioner was appointed. However, in the
appeal, the Collector set aside the appointment order
of the petitioner and allowed the appeal. The order
passed by the Collector has been affirmed by the
Commissioner.
7. Clause 1.5 of the circular dated 2.4.2008 reads as
under:-
"1.5 जिस ग्राम में आंगनबाड़ी के न्द्र खोला जाना प्रस्तावित है या
जहाँ पद रिक्त है, आवेदिका उसी ग्राम की एवं नगरीय क्षेत्र के
लिए उसी वार्ड की स्थानीय निवासी होना चाहिये। आवेदन पत्र के
साथ निवास के संबंध में निम्नलिखित में से कोई एक दस्तावेज
संलग्न किया जावेगाः-
क. उस ग्राम/नगरीय क्षेत्र की अद्यतन मतदाता सूची में नाम दर्ज हो
तो आवेदन पत्र में उसके कमांक का उल्लेख कर प्रतिलिपि लगाई
जावे।
अथवा
ख. संबंधित ग्राम पंचायत के सरपंच तथा सचिव व्दारा संयुक्त.
हस्ताक्षरित अथवा पटवारी तथा नगरीय निकायों में की जाने वाली
नियुक्ति में वार्ड पार्षद अथवा पटवारी द्वारा जारी प्रमाण पत्र
जिसमें वार्ड एवं ग्राम में निवासरत रहने का पता सहित स्पष्ट
उल्लेख हो।
टीपः यदि किसी आवेदक के निवास के संबंध में कोई शिकायत
प्राप्त होती है तो उस आवेदक के निवास के सत्यापन हेतु सक्षम
अधिकारी द्वारा जारी निवास संबंधी प्रमाण पन्त्र ही मान्यः किया
जावेगा ।"
8. Taking into consideration the residence certificate
issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram
Panchayat, Sitarampur, in favour of the petitioner
filed as Annexure-R-6/4, the provision of clause 1.5 of
the circular dated 2.4.2008 and the findings recorded
by the Collector and Commissioner, in my opinion, no
case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this
petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s)"
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that
the impugned order is inconsistent with the facts and
circumstances of the case. He would submit that as per the
State Government's circular/policy, only a permanent resident
of the concerned Gram Panchayat is eligible for appointment
as Anganbadi Worker. He further submits that respondent no.
6 did not submit a domicile certificate issued by the competent
authority while filing her application and was accordingly
declared ineligible in the merit list; her marriage with one
Mukesh Yadav of Village Khatwa (Bardar), District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (C.G.) and her subsequent residence with him
further disentitles her from claiming residence at Gram
Panchayat Sitarampur; moreover, the domicile certificate was
produced only after issuance of the merit list, which is
impermissible in law, and the caste certificate she had
submitted records her residence at Village Bhitiyahi, while her
name is also absent from the voter list of Gram Panchayat
Sitarampur; therefore, it is evident that only for the purpose of
securing appointment respondent no. 6 has submitted a
forged and fabricated domicile certificate showing her
residence at Gram Panchayat Sitarampur, and hence her
appointment cannot be sustained.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/writ petitioner. He further submits that hat a
domicile certificate issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of
the concerned Gram Panchayat was filed along with the
application form, and this fact has been considered by the
Collector and the Commissioner. He further submit that,
according to the recruitment policy for Anganwadi Workers
dated 2.4.2008, a certificate signed by the Sarpanch and
Secretary is acceptable as proof of residence. He would also
submit that both authorities have recorded concurrent
findings of fact . Since the order passed by the learned Single
Judge on correct appreciation of facts and law, it does not
suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error,
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available in the record.
8. On perusal of the record and having considered the rival
submissions, it is evident that Clause 1.5 of the circular dated
02.04.2008 clearly contemplates that proof of residence can be
either by way of entry in the updated voter list or by a
certificate jointly signed by the Sarpanch and Secretary of the
concerned Gram Panchayat. As far as respondent no. 6 is
concerned, (Annexure R-6/4) resident certificate has been
issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat,
Sitarampur. Hence both the Collector and the Commissioner,
upon due appreciation of material on record, recorded
concurrent findings in favour of respondent no. 6, which
findings have been correctly affirmed by the learned Single
Judge. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant
are only a reiteration of the grounds already considered and
rejected by the learned Single Judge. We find no perversity,
illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment
warranting interference in the exercise of writ appellate
jurisdiction.
9. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to
cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from
patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present
case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed
the writ petition.
10. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly
dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
shoaib
