HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6031 of 2006 Smt. Ram Bai ...Petitioners VERSUS 1.State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary 2.Collector, Surguja Ambikapur (CG) 3.The Project Officer 4.The Chief Executive Officer 5.Smt. Pushpa Sahu ...Respondents ! Smt.Meena Shashtri ^ Shri Y.S. Thakur,Shri Arvind dubey,Shri Arun sao,Shri Ashok shukla Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Dated: 24/04/2008 : Judgment ORDER
(Passed on 24th day of April, 2008)
1. The petitioner, by this petition, challenges the order
dated 25.09.2006 (Annexure P/9), whereby, the respondent No.
5 has been appointed as Anganbadi Karyakarta at Anganbadi
Center, harijanpara, by the respondent No. 4. Challenge to
the appointment of the respondent No. 5 on the post of
Anganbadi Karyakarta, is on two grounds. Firstly, that it
was not in accordance with circular dated 12.01.2006
(Annexure P/1) and secondly, the appointment of the
respondent No. 5 on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta is
violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
2. This Court, in the matter of Smt. Kaleshwari Vs. State
of Chhattisgarh and others (W.P.(S) No.796/07), and other
connected matters, decided on 09.02.2007, held that the
Anganbadi workers are admittedly employees of the Panchayats,
as their appointments are made by the Janpad Panchayats on
proposal made by the concerned Gram Panchayats. It was
further observed that the petitioners have statutory
alternative remedy available by way of statutory appeal under
Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal
and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short ‘the Rules, 1995) to the
Director of Panchayat, Government of Chhattisgarh. The
petitioners, without exercising of that alternative remedy of
statutory appeal, have approached this Court directly.
3. In the present case also adequate efficacious statutory
alternative remedy is accordingly available to the petitioner
under the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995 read with
section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993
(for short ‘ the Adhiniyam, 1993).
4. Smt. Meena Shashtri, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in the
matter of ABL Internation Ltd. and another v. Export Credit
Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others 1, Sanjana M.
Wig (Ms) v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.2 and U.P. State
Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and another3.
5. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and
others v. Gujrat Ambuja Cement and another4 observed as
“17. We shall first deal with the plea regarding
alternative remedy as raised by the appellant
State. Except for a period when Article 226 was
amended by the Constitution (Forty-second
Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to
alternative remedy has been considered to be a
rule of self-imposed limitation. It is
essentially a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the
existence of alternative remedy, it is within the
jurisdiction of description of the High Court to
grant relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost
sight of that though the matter relating to an
alternative remedy has nothing to do with the
jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court
should not interfere if there is an adequate
efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody
approaches the High Court without availing the
alternative remedy provided the High Court should
not ensure that he has made out a strong case or
that there exists good grounds to invoke the
21. In G.Verappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd.,
CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., Ramendra Kishore Biswas
v. State of Tripura, Shiv Gonda Anna Patil v.
State of Maharashtra, C.A. Abraham v. I.T.O,
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa,
H.B.Gandhi v. Gopinath & Sons, Whirlpool Corpn.
V. Registrar of Trademarks, Tin Plate Co. of
India Ltd. v. State of Bihar, Sheela Devi v.
Jaspal Singh, and Punjab National Bank v.
O.C.Krishnan, this Court had held that where
hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute,
party must exhaust the statutory remedy before
resorting to writ jurisdiction.”
6. Further applying the said ratio in the matter of U.P.
State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandey and another5, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“21. In U.P.State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P.
Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmachari Sangh, it was
held that when the dispute relates to
enforcement of a right or obligation under the
statute and specific remedy is, therefore,
provided under the statute, the High Court
should not deviate from the general view and
interfere under Article 226 except when a very
strong case is made out for making a departure.
The person who insists upon such remedy can
avail of the process as provided under the
statute. To the same effect or the decisions in
Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram
Wadke, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant,
Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn.
Of Ahmedabad and in Scooters India v. Vijai E.
7. In another latest decision on the concept of
maintainability of writ petition vis–vis availability of
alternative remedy, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sec.
U.P. High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad &
another v. H.K. Lal6, observed as under :
“4. From the records it is borne out that the question
as to whether the respondent has a legal right to alter
his date of birth recorded in the certificate granted by
the Board was pending consideration before the appellate
Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent should,
therefore, not have been entertained particularly in
view of the fact that the appeal thereagainst was
pending. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction
and should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an
8. A common thread running into the dicta laid down by the
Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is that, normally
the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate
efficacious alternative remedy. Where hierarchy of appeals is
provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory
remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a
very strong case is made out for making a departure.
9. Applying the well settled dicta laid down by the Supreme
Court on the issue of availability of alternative remedy to
the facts of the case, wherein, the petitioner has challenges
non-appointment of the petitioner, no case is made out for
making out a departure from normal rule. Thus, this petition
is dismissed as not maintainable, in view of the availability
of statutory alternative remedy. However, it is open to the
petitioner to take recourse to statutory alternative forum
that may be available to him, if so advised. No order asto