1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the two orders passed by the Collector (Annexure P/2) dated 06.07.2011 as also passed by the Commissioner (Annexure P/1) dated 18.02.2015.

2. Ignoring all the factual details, the brief facts relevant for adjudication of the dispute is that a recruitment process was initiated for filling up for the post of Anganbadi worker in the year 2007. The petitioner and the other candidates had applied for the post of Anganbadi worker for the Anganbadi Centre, Malda, under Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh in District Raigarh.

3. Initially the petitioner was granted an appointment vide Annexure P/3 on 14.09.2007. The respondent No.5 had immediately raised a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sarangarh, so far as illegal appointment made in favour of the petitioner is concerned. The Project officer after conducting the inquiry gave an inquiry report on 24.12.2007, wherein it was held that the petitioner was rightly appointed and that the respondent No.5 was not eligible for appointment on account of the fact that her relatives were in employment.

4. Subsequently, the respondent No.5 is said to have preferred an appeal before the Collector, who has allowed the appeal and has set-aside the order of appointment of the petitioner and ordered for appointment of the respondent No.5 vide order dated 06.07.2011 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner also vide Annexure P/1 rejected the revision petition vide impugned order dated 18.02.2015.

5. The appeal by the respondent No.5 stood allowed and which has further been accepted by the Revisional authority vide Annexure P/2 and P/1 respectively was on the ground that the alleged disqualification of the respondent No.5 on her relatives’ being in employment found to be incorrect.

6. The finding of the Collector as well as by the Commissioner was that the so called relatives were in fact the children of the elder brother and the younger brother of the father in law, who would not fall within the ambit of relatives as provided in the explanation clause under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.

7. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the only issue now left to be considered is whether those persons can be termed to be the near relatives of the respondent No.5 calling for his disqualification for appointment to the post of Anganbadi worker.

8. Apart from the aforesaid alleged disqualification, there is no dispute to the fact that it was the respondent No.5, who was found to be most meritorious candidate, as she has scored 68% whereas the petitioner herein has scored only about 48%.

9. In the circumstances all that we have to ascertain is the fact, whether the two persons alleged to be the relatives of the respondent No.5 are in fact relatives within the definition of relatives as is envisaged under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. In this regard, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer to Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short “the Act of 1993”). The relevant portion of Section 40 for adjudication of the present dispute is clause (c) to subsection (1) of Section 40 and the explanation provided to clause (c). For ready reference, both clause (c) as well as the explanation is concerned, it is being reproduced herein under:

40. Removal of office-bearers of Panchayat. -

(1) xxxxxxxx

(a) xxxxxxxx

(b) xxxxxxxx

Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section "Misconduct" shall include

(a) xxxxxxxx

(b) xxxxxxxx

(c) the use of position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any relative in the Panchayat or any action for extending any pecuniary benefits to any relative, such as giving out any type of lease, getting any work done through them in the Panchayat by an office-bearer of Panchayat.

Explanation. - For the purpose of this clause, the expression 'relative' shall mean father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wif