Savitri Dhruw v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3646 of 2021 Savitri Dhruw Daughter Of Shri Pardeshi Ram Dhruw, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Hardikala (Tona), Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Women And Child Development Officer, Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

5. Block Education Officer, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

6. Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For State :

Ms. Abhyunati Singh, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 15.07.2021

1. The issue involved in the present writ petition pertains to the appointment of Gram Sahayika at Gram Panchayat Hardikala (Tona), Tahsil & Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur.

2. According to the petitioner, she has applied for the said post and she has all the eligibility criteria for being considered. However, in the course of

allotment of marks, the petitioner has not been given any marks under the head of being a deserted lady. According to the petitioner, in the event the petitioner is given marks under the said head, she would be scoring much more than the other candidates and she would become eligible for the said post. The petitioner submits that though she has already made a representation/objection in this regard to the respondents 2 & 3, till date no decision on the said representation has been taken and the order of appointment has also not been issued.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submit that given the said facts, let an appropriate decision be taken on the representation/objection of the petitioner before a formal order of appointment is issued.

4. To this limited prayer, the State counsel does not oppose. However, she submits that any decision shall be strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and the requirements that were specifically mentioned/reflected in the advertisement itself.

5. Accordingly, subject to due verification of facts and records and also on due scrutiny whether the petitioner fulfills the other eligibility criteria, the present writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondents 2 & 3 to take a decision at the earliest before a formal order of appointment is issued, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai