← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP227/2176/2008dismissed

Sunila Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others

2016-01-21Hon'Ble The Chief Justice2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 2176 of 2008 Sunila Patel, aged about 30 years, daughte rof Shri Vishnu Lal, wife of Shri Ram Kumar (wrongly written as Rajkumar) resident of Village Konchar, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Additional Collector, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2.

The Director (Panchayat) Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3.

Swasthya Evam Mahila Bal Vikas Sthayee Samiti, Janpad Panchayat Kota, Through the Chief Executive Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4.

Swasthya Evam Mahila Vikas Sthayee Samiti Janpad Panchayat Kota Through Secretary Mahila Bal Vikas Adhikari, Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Deleted) 5.

Sabhapati, Swasthya Evam Bal Vikas Samiti, Janpad Panchayat Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

6.

Neenee Wife of Shiv Ram Gandharv, R/o village Konchara, Vikas Khand Kota, Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

7.

Pushpa Lahre wife of Rajkumar Lahare resident of Konchara, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8.

Laxmi Bai wife of Deviram Yadav, resident of village Konchara, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9.

Smt. Sangeeta Gupta wife of Shri Rajesh Gupta, resident of village Konchara, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

None.

For Respondent/State :

Shri UNS Deo, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21/01/2016 1.

The matter relates to battle for appointment as Anganbadi Worker originating on 12.7.2004 between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 9. 2.

It is apparent that with the passage of time, the Petitioner has lost interest in the matter. In any event, Anganbadi Workers are not government servant but agents of the Government for dissemination of welfare schemes. So long as there is no violation of principles of natural justice, there is no reason for the writ Court to interfere with the same. In the present case, it is apparent that the authorities have considered the objection and hearing has been granted to the Petitioner at each stage.

3.

The writ application is dismissed.

Sd/- (Navin Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit