Smt. Rajkumari Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8773 MP

                                            1

 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH,
                    AT JABALPUR

                             (DIVISION BENCH)
                               W.A. No.720/2018

        Smt.Rajkumari Dwivedi                                     ...Appellant
                                      Versus

        State of Madhya Pradesh and others                         ...Respondents
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Coram :
              Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice.
              Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Presence :
              Shri O.P.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
              Shri B.D.Singh, learned Government Advocate for the
              respondents.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               JUDGMENT

(14/12/2021)

Per : V.K. Shukla, J.

The present intra court appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of

Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal)

Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 10-05-2018 passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.13541/2017 (Smt.Rajkumari

Dwivedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) whereby the writ

petition filed by the appellant/petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on

19-010-2016 on the post of Anganwadi Assistant at Anganwadi Centre,

Khaduhali,Tehsil Beohari, District Shahdol. According to the appellant

she was appointed after due procedure followed by the respondents, for

which an advertisement was issued in which it was mentioned that the

appointment would be subject to any court order. Subsequently, in the

tentative merit list the appellant stood second having 57.25 marks and

thereafter on the basis of the merits, she was appointed on 19-10-2016

on the post of Anganwadi Assistant in the aforesaid centre, where the

appellant joined and continued on the said post without any interruption.

3. The contention of the appellant is that the impugned order dated

27-07-2017 has been passed behind her back without issuance of any

show cause notice, hence it is liable to be quashed. Subsequent to that,

an order has also been passed on 18-08-2017 by the Project Officer,

whereby the appellant has been informed that since the appeal filed by

the respondent no.6 has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner,

hence as per the Condition No.8 of the appointment order, her services

are terminated.

4. The appellant filed writ petition challenging the order dated

27-07-2017 passed by the respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner,

Shahdol, as also the order dated 18-08-2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by

the respondent no.5/Project Officer, Integrated Women Child

Development Project, Beohari, District Shahdol whereby the appellant's

services have been terminated without impleading her as a party. Vide

order dated 27-07-2017, the Additional Commissioner in an appeal

preferred by the respondent no.6 against the order dated 24-09-2015

passed by the Collector, Shahdol has allowed the appeal and directed to

reinstate the respondent no.6 by setting aside her order of termination.

The services of the respondent no.6 were terminated vide order dated

09-03-2015 issued by the Project Officer on the ground that she was

absent from the Anganwadi Centre at the time of inspection. The

aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent no.6 before the

Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner taking into

account the fact that the appellant was absent for a short period only and

that the penalty of termination imposed was not commensurate and was

disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and thus by giving her only

warning, the Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal preferred

by the respondent no.6 by setting aside her termination and thereafter

the appellant's services have been terminated vide order dated 18-08-

2017 as a natural consequence.

5. Thus, from the facts it is clear that the appellant was appointed

because of the vacancy created on termination of the respondent no.6

and there was a Condition No.8 in the appointment order that the

appointment of the appellant is subject to the orders passed by the

various courts. Thus, on reinstatement of the respondent no.6, the

termination of the appellant is a consequence, and no fault can be found

in the order passed by the respondent. We do not find any illegality in

the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition

warranting any interference in the present intra court appeal. Accordingly,

the writ appeal is dismissed.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are also disposed

off.

       (RAVI MALIMATH)                             (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
         CHIEF JUSTICE                                     JUDGE
hsp

                Digitally signed by HARSAHAI
                PATERIYA
                Date: 2021.12.20 14:54:10
                +05'30'