Pushpa Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Petitioner calls in question the legality, validity and correctness of order dated 28/06/2010 (Annexure P/8) passed by Director Panchayat affirming

the order dated 16/07/2009 (Annexure P/7) by which the Additional Collector, Takhatpur has affirmed the order dated 31/03/2006 passed by the

Nagar Panchayat appointing respondent No. 6 on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta.

Mr. M.H. Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that both the authorities have committed legal error in not setting aside the

appointment of respondent No. 6 overlooking the fact that petitioner is more economically poor that respondent No. 6 and the survey list of 2007Â08

clearly indicates that the financial condition of petitioner is weaker than that of respondent No. 6, but respondent No. 6 has been granted appointment

over petitioner merely on the ground that she is older than petitioner which is absolutely illegal and bad in law, as such, the impugned order is liable to

be set aside and petitioner may be directed to be appointed on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta.

Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel, and Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, would support the impugned order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.

It is not in dispute that pursuant to the application invited by the Municipal Corporation, Takhatpur, respondent No. 6 has been appointed on the post

of Aanganbadi Karyakarta by order dated 31/03/2006 which was questioned by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Additional Collector, who

by order dated 16/07/2009 held that respondent No. 6 was placed on serial No. 2 in the selected candidate list, but since the financial condition of

respondent No. 6 is weaker than of the petitioner as the annual income of respondent No. 6 is Rs. 6,000/Â and that of the petitioner is Rs. 12,000/Â‐

and further since respondent No. 6 stays in rented premises whereas petitioner stays at her own premises and since respondent No. 6 is older than

petitioner, on that basis, respondent No. 6 has been appointed as Aanganbadi Karyakarta by the Municipal Corporation absolutely in accordance with

law. The order passed by the Additional Collector has also been affirmed by the Director Panchayat by impugned order dated 28/06/2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the survey list of 2007Â08, which is after the date of appointment of respondent No. 6 on 31/3/2006,

clearly records that petitioner's income is lesser than respondent No. 6's but that document has been refused to be admitted in record on the ground

that the said document was executed pursuant to the date of appointment.

Thus, the finding recorded by both the lower Courts that respondent No. 6 is more appropriate candidate for appointment in the post of Aanganbadi

Karyakarta since she is economically poor than the petitioner having no house of her own and earning only Rs. 6,000/Â annually is a finding of fact

which is pure and simple and is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. No cost(s).