SMT. SHEETAL SONI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010295422026 2026:CGHC:38972-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 801 of 2026
Smt. Sheetal Soni W/o Shri Onkar Soni Aged About 28 Years R/o
Village And Post Office Lakhram, Police Station Ratanpur, Tehsil And
District Bilaspur C. G.
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of
Women And Child Development Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar
New Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur C. G.
2. Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G.
3. District Progaram Officer, Women And Child Development
Bilaspur District Bilaspur C. G.
4. Sub Divisional Office (Revenue) Bilaspur District Bilaspur C. G.
5. Tahsildar Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G.
6. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur
C. G.
7. Program Officer Integrated Women And Child Development
Project, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C. G.
8. Gram Panchayat Lakharam Through The Secretary, Gram
Panchayat Lakharam Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur
C.G.
9. Smt, Manju Yadav W/o Shri Arun Kumar Yadav Aged About 39
Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station
Ratanpur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G.
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE
Date:
2026.09.07
11:01:52
+0530
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE

2
10. Smt, Sukh Bai Kewat W/o Shri Divendra Kumar Kewat Aged
About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police
Station Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G.
11. Smt, Rajani Yadav W/o Shri Navneet Kumar Yadav Aged About 39
Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station
Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G.
12. Smt, Lata Dewangan W/o Shri Ramanuj Dewangan Aged About
43 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station
Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G.
13. Smt, Arati Kewat W/o Shri Durga Prasad Kewat Aged About 29
Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station
Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G.
14. Smt, Neeti Kewat W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Kewat Aged About 27
Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station
Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G.
15. Smt, Chandra Kali Sarthi W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Sarthi Aged About
35 Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station
Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G.
16. Smt, Karuna Verma W/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Verma Aged About 22
Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station
Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G.
17. Smt, Payal Verma W/o Shri Shivchand Verma Aged About 23
Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station
Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G.
18. Smt, Premlata Yadav W/o Shri Ram Krishna Yadav Aged About 42
Years R/o Village And Post Office Lakharam Police Station
Ratanpur Tehsil And District Bilaspur C. G.
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhadui, Deputy Advocate
General.

3
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
.09.2026 03
1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General,
appearing for the State.
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the
appellant assailing the order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WPS No. 7565 of 2023 ( Smt. Sheetal Soni vs. State
of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the writ petition preferred by
appellant/writ petitioner herein was came to be dismissed at motion
stage.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
respondent No. 7 issued an advertisement dated 09.09.2022 under the
Department of Women & Child Development inviting applications for
filling up the vacant posts of Staff Anganbadi Worker and Anganbadi
Assistant. It is submitted that, as specifically stipulated in the
advertisement, the selection and appointment to the advertised posts
were to be made in accordance with the directions/circular dated
02.04.2008 issued by respondent No. 1. Pursuant thereto, the appellant
submitted her application for appointment to the post of Anganbadi

4
Assistant at Anganbadi Centre No. 3, Lakhram, Gram Panchayat
Lakhram.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that, for the
aforesaid post, the appellant along with ten other candidates belonging
to village Lakhram submitted their applications before the competent
authority. Thereafter, a list of eligible candidates was published, wherein
the appellant secured 48.60% marks, whereas respondent No. 17
secured 49.60% marks. It is contended that the appellant, on
10.02.2023, submitted a representation before the concerned authority
seeking grant of six additional marks admissible to a member of a
Below Poverty Line (BPL) family under the applicable scheme/circular.
He also contended that the appellant had, along with her application,
produced her Middle School Certificate evidencing her having studied at
the Scheduled Tribe Girls School, Birda, an institution functioning under
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department of the State
Government. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid educational
qualification entitled the appellant to the additional marks prescribed
under the circular dated 02.04.2008. It is therefore urged that the claim
of the appellant for the additional marks was required to be duly
considered before finalising the selection.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, without
considering the representation dated 10.02.2023 and without granting
the appellant the marks to which she was entitled under the applicable
circular, the concerned authority proceeded to pass the appointment

5
order dated 03.05.2023 in favour of respondent No. 17 for the post of
Anganbadi Assistant at Anganbadi Centre No. 3, Lakhram. It is argued
that the appointment was thus made without properly applying the
criteria prescribed under the circular dated 02.04.2008.
6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was
entitled to six additional marks on account of her belonging to a BPL
family and three additional marks on account of having studied in the
Scheduled Tribe Girls School, Birda. If such marks had been duly
awarded and her candidature assessed in accordance with the
prescribed criteria, the appellant would have stood higher in merit and
would have been entitled to appointment to the post in question. The
failure of the authorities to consider the appellant's claim and supporting
documents has, according to learned counsel, materially prejudiced her
candidature. He also submits that the advertisement dated 09.09.2022
itself expressly provided that the appointment process would be
undertaken in accordance with the circular/directions dated 02.04.2008.
Consequently, the authorities were bound to adhere to the criteria and
procedure prescribed therein. It is contended that the appointment order
dated 03.05.2023 was passed in disregard of the said circular and,
therefore, could not have been sustained.
7. Another submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is that
the appointment order was passed by an authority lacking the requisite
jurisdiction. Referring to the circular dated 02.04.2008, learned counsel
submits that, in respect of the post of Anganbadi Assistant, the

6
competent appointing authority was the concerned Janpad Panchayat
and not respondent No. 7. On this ground also, it is urged that the
appointment order dated 03.05.2023 is without jurisdiction and is liable
to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant had challenged
the appointment order by filing WPS No. 7565 of 2023 before the
learned Single Judge of this Court. However, the learned Single Judge,
by order dated 18.06.2026, dismissed the writ petition without properly
appreciating the effect of the circular dated 02.04.2008, the appellant's
entitlement to additional marks and the issue relating to the competence
of the authority which passed the appointment order.
9. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate that the selection process was required to be conducted
strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the
circular dated 02.04.2008, and that the appellant's claim for additional
marks could not have been ignored without due consideration. Learned
counsel submits that the impugned appointment was consequently
vitiated by non-compliance with the prescribed selection criteria as well
as by the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the authority passing the
appointment order.
10. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the manner
in which the appellant's claim was dealt with, despite her having
produced the relevant documents and having specifically sought
consideration of the additional marks before finalisation of the selection,

7
demonstrates arbitrariness and non-application of mind on the part of
the authorities. It is contended that the action of the concerned authority
is contrary to the applicable circular and the terms of the advertisement
and has resulted in an illegal denial of appointment to the appellant. On
these submissions, learned counsel prays that the impugned order
dated 18.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.
7565 of 2023, as well as the appointment order dated 03.05.2023, be
set aside and appropriate consequential relief be granted in favour of
the appellant.
11. Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the appeal and
submits that the learned Single Judge has considered the entire
controversy in its proper perspective and, upon examination of the
documents placed on record, has rightly dismissed the writ petition at
the motion stage. It is contended that the appellant was required to
establish her entitlement to the additional marks in accordance with the
Circular dated 02.04.2008 and to produce the requisite documents in
support of her claim within the prescribed selection process. The
appellant, however, failed to furnish any documentary proof along with
her application demonstrating that she belonged to the BPL category.
The certificate subsequently relied upon by her, issued by the Sarpanch
of Gram Panchayat Lakhram, did not establish her entitlement to six
bonus marks under the said Circular.
12. Learned State counsel further submits that the claim of the
appellant for three additional marks on account of having studied in a

8
school run by the Tribal Department was also rightly rejected by the
learned Single Judge, as neither the application form nor the progress
report produced by the appellant established that she had passed Class
VIII from a Kanya Ashram run by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe Department, as contemplated under the Circular dated
02.04.2008. It is also pointed out that the appellant did not raise such a
claim while submitting her objections before the competent authority on
22.02.2023. The learned Single Judge, therefore, committed no error in
holding that the documents relied upon by the appellant did not
establish her entitlement to the additional marks.
13. With regard to the challenge to the competence of respondent
No.7 to issue the appointment order, learned State counsel submits that
the appointment order dated 03.05.2023 was issued only after
completion of the prescribed selection procedure and approval of the
select list by the competent authority/Selection Committee. The
appellant has not placed any material on record to establish that the
select list had not been approved by the competent authority or the
concerned Janpad Panchayat, Bilha. The appointment order, being
consequential to the selection process, could not, therefore, be treated
as an order passed without jurisdiction merely because it was issued by
respondent No. 7. It is accordingly submitted that the findings recorded
by the learned Single Judge call for no interference in the intra-Court
appeal.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

9
material available on record, including the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
15. The principal grievance of the appellant is that she was entitled to
six bonus marks on account of her being a member of a BPL family and
three bonus marks on account of having passed Middle School from an
institution contemplated under the Circular dated 02.04.2008, and that
non-grant of such marks resulted in her being placed below respondent
No. 17 in the merit list.
16. From a perusal of the Circular dated 02.04.2008, it appears that
six bonus marks are contemplated for female candidates belonging to
the BPL category and three bonus marks for candidates who have
passed Middle School from an Ashram run by the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe Department. The entitlement to such bonus marks,
however, has to be established by the candidate by producing the
requisite supporting material in accordance with the prescribed
procedure.
17. In the present case, the learned Single Judge, upon examining
the application submitted by the appellant, recorded a categorical
finding that no document or certificate had been enclosed with the
application to establish that the appellant belonged to the BPL category.
The certificate subsequently relied upon by the appellant, issued by the
Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Lakhram, also did not establish the fact
that she was a member of the BPL category. The tabular chart prepared
by the authorities while inviting objections/claims also supported the

10
aforesaid finding. We find no material on record which would persuade
us to take a different view.
18. So far as the claim for three additional marks on account of having
studied in a school run by the Tribal Department is concerned, the
material produced by the appellant merely indicates that she had
passed Class VIII from a school run by the Tribal Department. The
learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that neither the application
form nor the progress report relied upon by the appellant establishes
that she had passed Class VIII from a Kanya Ashram run by the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department, which was the
specific requirement for grant of the aforesaid bonus marks under the
Circular dated 02.04.2008. The distinction between having studied in a
school run by the Tribal Department and having passed Middle School
from a Kanya Ashram contemplated under the Circular cannot be
overlooked.
19. We also find substance in the submission of the learned State
counsel that the appellant did not raise her claim for the aforesaid three
additional marks at the appropriate stage of submitting objections. The
learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellant did not raise such a
claim while submitting her objections on 22.02.2023. In such
circumstances, the appellant cannot, merely on the basis of the
documents subsequently relied upon, seek to reopen the completed
selection process without first establishing a clear entitlement under the
governing Circular.

11
20. The further contention of the appellant that respondent No. 7
lacked jurisdiction to issue the appointment order also does not merit
acceptance. The learned Single Judge has specifically noticed that the
appellant failed to place on record any material demonstrating that the
select list had not been approved by the competent Selection
Committee or the concerned Janpad Panchayat, Bilha. The
appointment order dated 03.05.2023 was issued subsequent to
completion of the selection procedure. In the absence of any material
showing that the selection itself was not approved by the competent
authority, the mere issuance of the consequential appointment order by
respondent No. 7 cannot, by itself, render the appointment void for want
of jurisdiction.
21. The contention that the authorities acted in violation of the Circular
dated 02.04.2008 is also not borne out from the material available on
record. The advertisement itself required the selection process to be
undertaken in accordance with the said Circular. The appellant was
accordingly required to establish her entitlement to the bonus marks in
terms of the conditions prescribed therein. Since the appellant failed to
establish her entitlement to the six bonus marks under the BPL category
and the three bonus marks relating to the prescribed educational
qualification, no illegality can be attributed to the authorities in not
awarding such marks.
22. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction in an intra-Court
appeal, interference is warranted only where the order of the learned

12
Single Judge suffers from an error of law, perversity or failure to
consider the material aspects of the matter. In the present case, the
learned Single Judge has considered the relevant provisions of the
Circular dated 02.04.2008, the documents relied upon by the appellant,
the issue regarding grant of bonus marks and the challenge to the
competence of the authority issuing the appointment order. The findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge are based upon the material
available on record and cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary
to law.
23. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single
Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the selection and
appointment in question and has rightly dismissed WPS No. 7565 of
2023 at the motion stage. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any
legal infirmity in the order dated 18.06.2026 warranting interference by
this Court in exercise of its intra-Court appellate jurisdiction.
24. Consequently, the present writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is
hereby dismissed . The order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WPS No. 7565 of 2023 is affirmed.
25. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan