The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the policy dated 06.01.2000 for the appointment of Anganbadi Worker and the rejection of the appellant's contentions regarding preferential treatment and equity.

JUDGMENT

Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 05.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.3821 of 2009 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of dismissal of revision filed by him was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that, the Janpad Panchayat initiated proceedings for appointment of Anganbadi Worker at Anganbadi Centre, of Village Panchayat Bhavarmara. In the said process, Janpad Panchayat i.e. respondent No.7 called for list/panel of the applicants from Village Panchayat and at the end, appointed the appellant as Anganbadi Worker vide appointment order dated 13.11.2006.

3. Respondent No.4 challenged the appointment of the appellant by filing an appeal before the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon. The Additional Collector after hearing the parties therein, allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment/selection of the appellant vide order dated 30.04.2007. The order of Additional Collector was put to challenge by the appellant before the Director Panchayat by way of filing revision, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2009 holding the order passed in appeal to be in accordance with law.

4. Thereafter, the order of Director Panchayat was challenged by the appellant before this Court by filing Writ Petition (S) No.3821 of 2009 and learned Single Judge after hearing both the sides as well as taking into consideration the orders/guidelines/circulars issued by the State Government for appointment of the Anganbadi Workers prescribing therein the preference to be given to the 8th pass candidate, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order.

5. Shri Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order/circular/guideline dated 06.01.2000 issued by the State Government mentions that a person, who is a Government servant or elected or nominated member of any Panchayat/Institution/Urban Bodies or their relatives will not be appointed as Anganbadi Worker, whereas respondent No.4 is working as Mitanin and also presently an elected Panch of Village Panchayat, Bhavarmara, therefore she is not eligible to be appointed as Anganbadi Worker. He points out that respondent No.4 was elected as Panch in the recent election of Village Panchayat i.e. of the year 2019-2020 and submits that looking to the change of circumstances and subsequent events taken place, the order passed in writ petition may be set aside and the appellant may be permitted to continue and perform her duties as Anganbadi Worker. It is further contended that the appellant is continuously working since 01.12.2006 on the post of Anganbadi Worker and thereby there exists equity in her favour to continue on the post of Anganbadi Worker. He places his reliance on the matters of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770 and Hidayatkhan Bismillakhan Pathan v. Vaijnath and others, (2009) 7 SCC 506 .

6. Per contra, Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned Government Advocate representing the State/respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 6 submits that the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge is in consonance with the order/guideline/circular issued by State Government on 06.01.2000, which was in force at the time of subject proceedings of the appointment of Anganbadi Worker. It is contended by him that Clause 7(1) of the circular dated 06.01.2000 specifically provides that preference to be given to the 8th pass candidate and only when the 8th pass candidate is not available, then only the candidate having higher qualification of High School pass, will be appointed.

7. Shri Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and argued that as per the order/circular/guideline dated 06.01.2000, which is effective on the date of selection process, it is only respondent No.4, who was having requisite preferential qualification to be appointed on the post of Angan