Nisha Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8279 MP

     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
                   (Division Bench)


                       W.A. No.211 of 2014

                           Nisha Mishra
                              -Versus-
                      State of M.P. and others

                                --
Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM :
       Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice.
       Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.

                         JUDGMENT

(Jabalpur, dtd.06.12.2021)

Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-

In the instant appeal preferred under Section 2(1) of the

Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth to Appeal)

Adhiniyam, 2005 the penetrability and tenability of the order dated

23-01-2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.8692 of

2013 has been called in question.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details : the facts which are

obligatory to be uncurtained are that the appellant/writ-petitioner

[hereafter referred to as "the appellant"] challenged the order dated

11-03-2013 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa

whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent No.6 - Smt. Asha

Patel has been allowed seeking her appointment as Anganwadi

Karyakarta, Anganwadi Centre No.2, Barahata and the order dated

26-02-2010 has been upheld.

3. The respondent No.6 was selected and appointed as

Anganwadi Karyakarta, Anganwadi Centre No.2, Barahta Tahsil -

Mauganj, District Rewa by the Project Officer, Integrated Chief

Development Mauganj, vide order dated 26-02-2000. The said

selection was in pursuant to advertisement dated 27-7-2009,

whereby the respondent No.6 was placed at serial number 1 in the

select list having secured 47.22 marks.

4. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred an

appeal before the Collector, Rewa on the ground that 10 marks were

wrongly awarded to the selectee in lieu of BPL (Below Poverty

Line), because her name was deleted from the list of BPL

subsequently by Tahsildar, Mauganj vide order dated 15-4-2010.

The challenge found favour by the Collector, Rewa vide order dated

02-01-2012, whereby the appointment respondent No.6 was

cancelled on a finding that the name of head of family having been

deleted from the BPL List, she was not entitled for 10 marks in lieu

thereof.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.6 preferred an

appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa

on the ground that the cut-off date for considering the eligibility

being 27-7-2009 and even till 26-02-2010 when the appointment

letter was issued, her name was in the BPL list, and the petitioner

being a resident of Ward No. 8, Nagar Panchayat, Mauganj and at

serial numbers 10 and 11, the name of her husband has been

recorded in the BPL list, the Collector erred in cancelling the

appointment and directing appointment of the appellant.

6. The appellate authority - the Additional Commissioner,

upon perusal of the record found that the name of the head of family

of the respondent No.6 was included in the BPL List on the date of

selection and appointment. She was selected and appointed on 26-

02-2010, whereas the name of the respondent No.6 was deleted from

the BPL list on 15-04-2010 after the appointment.

7. Appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in

proper perspective, the learned Single Judge has ascribed the

finding that on the date of selection the respondent No.6 was eligible

to get 10 marks in lieu of being in the BPL list. Thus, the Selection

Committee did not make any mistake by awarding 10 marks in lieu

thereof.

8. We do not perceive any error in the order passed by the

learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, as on the date

of selection and appointment the name of the respondent No.6 was

included in the BPL list. Thus, no interference is called for in the

present intra-court appeal.

9. Consequently, the the writ appeal is dismissed without

any order as to costs.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

      (Ravi Malimath)                            (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
        Chief Justice                                    Judge


ac.

 Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
 Date: 2021.12.08 17:51:03 +05'30'