Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 1563
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
GANGA SAHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS No. 9020 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jitendra Gupta
For the Respondents: Hariom Rai, Hemant Kumar Kesharwani
A writ petition is generally not maintainable when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, such as an appeal to a designated authority, unless there is a patent illegality or violation of natural justice that justifies bypassing the remedy.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an appointment order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that despite securing the highest marks (47.76) for the post of Anganbadi Assistant, they were excluded from the merit list without a hearing following objections by another candidate, leading to the appointment of a less meritorious candidate. The court found that an efficacious alternative remedy exists under the departmental guidelines. The primary issue was whether the petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy is available under clause 11 of the Guidelines issued by the Women and Child Development Department, State of Chhattisgarh, dated 2.4.2008. The court reasoned that grievances regarding appointment orders should first be brought before the concerned Collector via appeal, and the presence of such a remedy renders the direct petition not maintainable. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the appointment of a lower-ranked candidate after the exclusion of a higher-ranked candidate from the merit list without a hearing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conflict between the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and the claim of patent illegality/violation of natural justice. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. a writ petition is not maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. direction to resolve grievances through the prescribed statutory appeal process with specific instructions on calculating limitation periods. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
SHYNA AJAY
Digitally signed by
SHYNA AJAY
DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN
Order on Board
1. By way of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 4.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4, whereby respondent No.5 was appointed to the post of Anganbadi Assistant.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs :
10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the matter pertaining to the appointing a candidate with lesser marks to the post of Anganbadi Assistant instead of the petitioner who had scored the highest Marks.
10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned appointment order dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Respondent no. 4 whereby the petitioner was denied her rightful claim and the respondent no. 5 had been issued with the appointment letter.
10.3 This, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct an enquiry determining the veracity of the complaint made by respondent no.5.
10.4 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favor of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
10.5 The cost of the petition which the petitioner had to bear on account of negligence and arbitrariness of the Respondents in appointing non-meritorious candidate to the post of Anganbadi Assistant.
3. The facts relevant for disposal of this case are that in the month of December 2022, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the posts of Aanganbadi Assistant and Workers for various Aanganbadi Centers. The petitioner applied for the post of Aaganbadi Assistant for the Rajeev Nagar Aaganbadi Centre No.2, Durg. Respondent No.5 also submitted an application for the same post at the same centre. After due scrutiny of the applications received for the said centre, the respondent authorities issued a final merit list of the candidates on 22.5.2023, wherein the petitioner was ranked first, having secured a total of 47.76 marks. Subsequently, respondent No.5 raised objection regarding the marks obtained by the petitioner based on various unsubstantiated allegations. On the basis of the said objection, the petitioner was excluded from the merit list without being afforded any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner made repeated representations to the respondent authorities, however, the same remained unheeded. Consequently, the appointment order dated 4.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) was issued in favour of respondent No.5, despite the said respondent having secured lower marks than the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for respondent No.5 submit that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under clause 11 of the Guidelines issued by the Women and Child Development Department, State of Chhattisgarh, dated 2.4.2008. He submit that the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned Collector to raise her grievances, however, without availing the prescribed statutory remedy, she has directly approached this Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the respective respondents submit that the present petition is not maintainable.
