Ku.Bharti Rathore v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.2858 OF 2019

1. Ku. Bharti Rathore D/o Shri Narshing Rathore Aged About 20 Years R/o Lapti, Post Nawadih, Police Station And Tashil Lormi, Civil and Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Collector Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

4. Smt. Prajesh Rajput W/o Shri Manharan Rajput Aged About 24 Years R/o Lapti, Post Nawadih,police Station And Tahsil Lormi Civil and Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 15.04.2019 1.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondent No.4 has been appointed as Rozgar Sahayak for the village Lipti.

2.

The contention of the petitioner is that the candidature of respondent No.4 was initially rejected holding her to be ineligible, however, the same has been subsequently entertained inspite of fact that the respondent No.4 has not produced the domicile certificate of her being a resident of the concerned village.

3.

This court at this juncture is not inclined to entertain this petition for the reason that the objection/appeal against the order of appointment should had been made to the Collector-respondent No.2 by the petitioner who in turn was required to process and scrutinize the objection/appeal so filed.

4.

Given the said facts, let the petitioner make an appropriate appeal/objection to the respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 supported with all relevant records, proof and supporting documents in support of her contentions. The Collector-respondent No.2 in turn, on due scrutiny, shall decide the appeal/objection of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder