Shoba Sonwani vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 5 as well as Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 6.

The present appeal is directed against an order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 3502/2020, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

The matter relates to appointment of an Anganbadi Worker. The respondent No. 6 was appointed as Anganbadi Worker.

Mr. Saini submits that the learned Single Judge confined consideration of the case only with regard to grant of 6 marks to the respondent No. 6 on account of she being a person belonging to the below poverty line (for short, BPL) category, but had not adverted to the point argued that the authorities had not awarded 6 marks to the appellant, though she also belongs to the BPL category. It is submitted that him that even if it is conceded that the respondent No. 6 is entitled to 6 marks, if the appellant is awarded 6 marks, the appellant will rank superior to the respondent No. 6. He has drawn our attention to paragraph 8.4 and 9.5 of the writ petition in this connection.

Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 5 submits that though such a contention is raised in the writ petition, it is not known as to whether any such submission was advanced before the learned Single Judge as there is no reflection of the same in the order under assailment.

Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 6 also endorses the said submission of Mr. Sharma.

Mr. Sharma further submits that the petitioner had not raised any objection with regard to non-granting of 6 marks to the appellant in his objection dated 20.05.2015 to which Mr. Saini responds to the effect that the appellant was not aware that she has been denied 6 marks.

There is no dispute that in the writ petition, denial of 6 marks to the appellant was pleaded by the appellant.

A perusal of the grounds of appeal, more particularly, at paragraph (v) and (vi) would give an impression that such a contention was raised before the learned Single Judge.

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid aspect needs to be considered by the learned Single Judge. We, however, make it clear that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to entitlement of the respondent No. 6 to 6 marks has remained undisturbed and the consideration will be confined only as to whether the appellant is also entitled to 6 marks.

With the above observation and direction, the writ appeal is partly allowed. The matter stands remanded to the learned Single Judge for consideration. Registry will list this case on 09.01.2023 before the Bench having the roster.

In compliance of the order dated 17.10.2022, Mr. Sharma had produced the application form with enclosures of the respondent No. 6. The same is returned back to him.

Since the writ petition was disposed of on the first date of listing, the respondents would be at liberty to file response to the writ petition before the next date fixed.

No cost.