JUDGMENT : GOUTAM BHADURI, J. 1. The challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (227) No. 6512 of 2011 (Annexure A-1) whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner Sharda Bai was allowed and she was reinstated on the post of Anganbadi worker which was made by virtue of appointment order dated 27.01.2007. By the judgment, the learned Single Judge has quashed the removal order of Sharda Bai and in furtherance it was ordered to appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganbadi worker. The learned Single Judge had further set aside the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the Collector in appeal which was affirmed in revisional order dated 17.07.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner. 2. Being aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge, Revti Bai, who was respondent no. 6 in W.P. (227) No. 6512/2011 has filed this writ appeal. The writ petition was filed by Smt. Sharda Bai (respondent no. 6 herein this appeal) stating that she was appointed to the post of Anganbadi worker. 2. Being aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge, Revti Bai, who was respondent no. 6 in W.P. (227) No. 6512/2011 has filed this writ appeal. The writ petition was filed by Smt. Sharda Bai (respondent no. 6 herein this appeal) stating that she was appointed to the post of Anganbadi worker. The requisite qualification, as prescribed in the Policy dated 02.01.2006 which is relevant for adjudication of the matter is reproduced herein-below: ¼1½ fu;qfDr dh vgZrk;sa%& ¼v½ vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ & vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ ,d efgyk ¼18&44 o"kZ dh vk;q½ ekulsoh dk;ZdrkZ gksxhA eSfVªd ikl dk;ZdrkZvksa dks :i;s 1000@& rFkk uku&eSfVªd dks :i;s 938@& Áfr ekg ekuns; fn;k tkosxkA muds p;u esa fuEu fcUnqvksa dk fo'ks"k /;ku fn;k tkosA ¼1½ mEehnokj mlh xzke@uxj dh fuoklh ,oa xzke iapk;r@uxj iapk;r dh fuokZpd lwph esa ntZ ernkrk gksuh pkfg;s] ftl xzke@uxj esa vkaxuckM+h [kksyh tkuh ÁLrkfor gSA fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa ml xzke@uxj ckgj dh efgyk dks dk;ZdrkZ ds :i esa u j[kk tk;sA ¼2½ vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZvksa ds fy;s p;u dh tkus okyh efgyk LFkkuh; leqnk; dks Lohdk;Z gks rFkk mlesa usr`Ro Ánku djus dh {kerk gks rkfd og efgyk e.My dk xBu dj ldsA ¼3½ mEehnokj ljdkjh deZpkjh vFkok iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa@uxjh; fudk; ds fuokZfpr vFkok euksuhr lnL; vFkok muds lxs lacaf/k;ksa dks vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ esa fu;qfDr ugha fn;k tk ldrkA bl vk'k; dk lacaf/kr ls 'kiFk i= ysuk vfuok;Z gksxkA ¼4½ vkfne tkfr dY;k.k foHkkx }kjk lapkfyr 'kkykvksa fo'ks"kdj vkJe 'kkykvksa esa mRrh.kZ gksus okyh ,oa fu/kkZfjr vgZrk j[kus okyh vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr dh efgykvksa dks muds xzke dh vkaxuckM+h esa dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds fjDr inksa ij fu;qfDr esa ÁkFkfedrk nh tkosA ¼5½ fu;qfDr esa fo/kok@ifjR;Drk efgykvksa dks loksZPp ÁkFkfedrk nh tkos rnkuqlkj fuEu ifjokj ds efgykvksa dks fo'ks"k ÁkFkfedrk nh tkos%& ¼v½ xjhch js[kk ds uhps thou ;kiu djus okys ifjokjA ¼c½ vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tkfr ds ifjokjA ¼6½ vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ dks bl ;kstuk ds varxZr fofHkUu lsok;sa Ánku djus dk nkf;Ro gS o blds fy;s mUgsa dkQh fjdkMZ j[kuk gksrk gSA vr% ;g okaNuh; gS fd dk;ZdrkZ eSfVªd gks ;fn ;g laHko u gks rks fefMy ikl efgyk dh fu;qfDr dh tk;s] ;fn og Hkh miyC/k u gks rks ml xzke dh de i<+h&fy[kh fdUrq le>nkj efgyk dh fu;qfDr dh tkosA nwljs dk;ZdrkZ esa tgka lk{kjrk dk Áfr'kr de gS ogka fuj{kj fdUrq le>nkj efgyk dh fu;qfDr Hkh dh tk ldrh gSA ¼7½ vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ ds p;u ds le; 8oha mRrh.kZ mEehnokj dh ÁkFkfedrk nh tk;sA 8oha ikl efgyk miyC/k u gksus ij gh gk;j lsds.Mjh dks fu;qfDr nh tk;sA ;fn ,d ls vf/kd efgyk;sa leku 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk j[krh gks rks fuEu Øe esa ÁkFkfedrk nh tk;s%& ¼v½ fo/kokA ¼c½ ifjR;DrkA ¼l½ vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds mEehnokjA ¼8½ uxjh; {ks=ksa esa vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ dk eSfVªdqysV gksuk vfuok;Z gSA 3. The appointment of Sharda Bai was resolved in a meeting of Gram Panchayat on the ground that she was holder of BPL Card. Thereafter she was selected to the post of Anganbadi worker at Mudkua, Premnagar on 27.01.2007. The appellant herein also applied for appointment to the post of Anganibadi worker but she was not selected on the ground that she was not having valid BPL Card and eventually respondent no. 6 Sharda Bai was appointed as Anganbadi worker. The said appointment of Sharda Bai was challenged by the Revati Bai by filing W.P. No. 841 of 2007. The said writ petition came to be disposed vide order dated 13.02.2007 whereby direction was issued to the Collector to look into the allegation made by petitioner Revati Bai and pass an appropriate order in accordance with Aanganbadi Scheme and law. Consequently, the Project Officer, Unified Child Development Project conducted an in-house enquiry and the petitioner was asked to submit her explanation by the target date of 27.08.2007. Subsequently, the District Programme Officer, Woman and Child Development reconsidered the case of appointment by order dated 12.09.2007 and cancelled the appointment of Sharda Bai and appointed appellant Revti Bai as Anganbadi worker. 4. Against that order, Sharda Bai preferred a writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 6498 of 2007 which came to be disposed off vide order dated 14.11.2007 wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy of statutory appeal before the concerned authority. Thereafter, appeal was preferred by Sharda Bai, the initial appointee, and vide order dated 29.03.2010 (Annexure P-6) the Collector dismissed the appeal with an observation that the High Court of Chhattisgarh has found the petition preferred by the Revati Bai to be correct and accordingly he directed for appointment of Revati Bai to the post of Anganbadi worker. Thereafter the revision was preferred by Sharda Bai before the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 11.07.2011 dismissed the revision and against that, the writ petition was preferred which was allowed by the learned single Judge. 5. Thereafter the revision was preferred by Sharda Bai before the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 11.07.2011 dismissed the revision and against that, the writ petition was preferred which was allowed by the learned single Judge. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Revati Bai would submit that among others, she and Sharda Bai both participated in the process of appointment to the post of Anganbadi worker but the candidature of appellant was not considered only on the ground that certain correction of word was existing in the BPL Card and as such, her candidature was wrongly rejected. It is submitted that as per the new policy of the State of Chhattisgarh dated 02.01.2006, the first preferential right was granted to the BPL Card Holder and the second preference would be given to the Scheduled Tribe Candidate. It is stated Revati Bai being placed in the category of below- poverty-line (BPL), she was entitled to hold the post instead of Sharda Bai. It is further contended that in the order of merit list of selection, Revati Bai would surge ahead of respondent Sharda Bai as she was not holder of BPL Card. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration such preferential right of the appellant over the respondent. As such, the order of appointment issued in favour of the appellant by the Collector by cancelling the appointment of Sharda Bai was well merited and ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 6. Per contra, Mr. Shailendra Bajpai learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, would submit that the appellant has not filed any BPL Card before any authority to claim the preferential right. He would submit that the documents filed before this Court too would show that it is not beyond any suspicion and the certificate of Gram Panchayat would reveal that the BPL card on which reliance is placed by the appellant is an outcome of fraud. He would submit that the documents filed before this Court too would show that it is not beyond any suspicion and the certificate of Gram Panchayat would reveal that the BPL card on which reliance is placed by the appellant is an outcome of fraud. He would further submit that on the earlier round of litigation, no specific direction was given by the High Court in W.P. (S) No. 6498/2007 to the extent that appellant Revati Bai should be appointed in place of Sharda Bai whereas the order of the Collector dated 29.03.2010 has wrongly noted the fact that in a petition filed by Revti Bai before the High Court, it was found that the contention of Revati Bai in W.P. (S) No. 841/2007 was correct and directed for appointment of Revati Bai. Therefore, the initial appointment order of Revati Bai itself has suffered illegality which has been rectified by the learned single Judge. He would further submit that while setting aside the appointment of Sharda Bai, no opportunity of hearing was given to her. The order would show that in continuation on wrong premises, the order of appointment of Revati Bai was passed. Therefore, the order of learned Single Judge is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is a long drawn litigation before different fora. Initially, after appointment of Sharda Bai, it was challenged before the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 841 of 2007 wherein the High Court on 13.02.2007 has passed the following order: “Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Collector Korba/respondent no. 2 is directed to look into the allegation made by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with Anganbadi Scheme and law.” 8. A perusal of aforesaid order would show that the High Court directed respondent No. 2 therein i.e. Collector, Korba, to look into the allegations made by petitioner Revati Bai and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the Anganbadi Scheme and law. Thereafter the show cause notice was issued to Sharda Bai and eventually the order of cancellation of appointment of Sharda Bai came to be passed on 12.09.2007 and thereby appellant Revati Bai was appointed. 9. Thereafter the show cause notice was issued to Sharda Bai and eventually the order of cancellation of appointment of Sharda Bai came to be passed on 12.09.2007 and thereby appellant Revati Bai was appointed. 9. There is nothing on record to show that any enquiry was held or any opportunity of hearing was given to Sharda Bai before such appointment came to an end. The same having been challenged before the Collector in appeal, the Collector by its order dated 29.03.2010 observed that Sharda Bai worked as Anganbadi worker for 9 months and further went on to record that the High Court while hearing the writ petition filed by Revati Bai found the allegations levelled by Ravati Bai to be correct and had directed the State to appoint Revati Bai as Anganbadi worker. Thereby, Appellant Revati Bai was appointed as Anganbadi worker by cancelling the appointment of Sharda Bai and consequently the appeal filed by respondent Sharda Bai was dismissed. 10. The reasons assigned in the order of termination passed by the District Programme Officer on 12.09.2007 and subsequently in the order passed by the Collector on 29.03.2010 that the cancellation of appointment order of Sharda Bai is done in pursuance of the High Court order is completely based on presumption and no such directions were given in the order of the High Court. The High Court by order dated 13.07.2007 has only directed to make enquiry and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the Anganbadi Scheme and law. As such the facts noted by the Collector and other Officer that the allegations of Revati Bai were found to be correct and the High Court has directed for appointment of Revati Bai are ab-initio void and illegal. No such direction was ever existing on the face of orders passed by this Court. The basis on which the appellant stepped into shoes of Anganbadi worker has no legal background. The order passed by the learned single Judge whereby the order of cancellation of appointment of Sharda Bai was set aside, is required to be upheld for the reason that before cancellation of appointment, no opportunity of hearing was given by way of enquiry. The basis on which the appellant stepped into shoes of Anganbadi worker has no legal background. The order passed by the learned single Judge whereby the order of cancellation of appointment of Sharda Bai was set aside, is required to be upheld for the reason that before cancellation of appointment, no opportunity of hearing was given by way of enquiry. The facts would show that the rule of audi alteram partem was not followed in its true spirit and instead, findings were recorded on presumption and perverse understanding of the order of the High Court resulting in cancellation of appointment of Shrada Bai. 11. Indisputably, Respondent Shrarda Bai was a member of the Scheduled Aboriginal Tribe, which is one of the criteria that is required for the appointment of Anganbadi worker. The appellant only claims that she belongs to BPL category and not a member of Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, when the appointment of respondent no. 6 was on the ground that she was more eligible for the reason that she had secured more marks, the said opinion cannot be interdicted by judicial interference. That apart, the BPL card on which the appellant claims her preferential right is seriously disputed by respondent Sharda Bai and the documents which are filed before this Court in Writ Appeal and the documents on which the reliance has been placed to show the appellant is holder of a BPL card cannot be taken as conclusive proof. 12. Consequently, after due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.