Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Preeti Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
W.A. No.572/2021
Smt. Preeti Singh
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ? Yes/Not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel the appellant.
Shri Ashish Anand Barnad, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent nos.1 to 5/State.
Shri Pushpendra Kumar Verma, leaned counsel for the respondent
No.6 on caveat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Jabalpur: 02-07-2021)
Per: V.K.Shukla, J.
The present intra court appeal has been filed under Section 2(1)
of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 16-06-2021 passed in W.P.
No.14217/2020 (Smt.Preeti Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others) by the
learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has
been dismissed. Both the orders passed by the Commissioner and
Collector dated 17-07-2020 (Annexure P-5) and 11-09-2020 have been
held to be valid.
2. The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17-07-2020 passed by
the Collector, District Sidhi and also order dated 11-09-2020 passed by
the Commissioner, Rewa Division,Rewa.
3. The facts in nutshell are that an advertisement was issued on 21-
08-2018 inviting applications for filling up the post of Aganwadi Worker
of various centres of District Sidhi. The appellant and the respondent no.6
both submitted their applications for Aganwadi Centre, Nagar
Panchayat, Ward No.8 Tehsil Gopad Banas, District Sidhi (hereinafter
Aganwadi Centre shall be referred to as 'Centre'). There were other
candidates also, who applied for the post of Aganwadi Worker. A
tentative select list (Annexure P-2) was published in which respondent
no.6 secured first position as per the merit, as she secured highest marks
i.e. 73.8 whereas the appellant secured 5th position as she secured 53.8
marks.
4. The appellant/petitioner submitted an objection before the
Selection Committee that the respondent no.6 was an elected Corporator
and as such she was not eligible to be appointed as Aganwadi Worker. It
was further stated that the respondent no.6 had received the salary of
Corporator till the month of November-December and as per Clause-4
of the policy issued on 10-07-2020 for selection of Aganwadi Worker,
the respondent no.6 is ineligible to be appointed on this count.
5. The Selection Committee considering the objection raised by the
appellant, cancelled the appointment of the respondent no.6 and
published the final select list on 31-08-2019 in which the appellant was
shown to be appointed on the post of Aganwadi Worker for the centre.
The appointment order was issued on 04-09-2019 and the appellant
submitted her joining.
6. The respondent no.6 thereafter filed an appeal before the Collector,
Sidhi and the said appeal was allowed by order dated 17-07-2020
(Annexure P-5). The Collector finding the selection of the appellant
illegal, set aside the order passed by the Selection Committee cancelling
the appointment of the appellant.
7. The order of the Collector was assailed by the appellant in second
appeal before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa. The
Commissioner dismissed the said appeal by order dated 11-09-20209.
8. Both the orders were challenged by the appellant in W.P.
No.14217/2020 and the writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned
order which has been assailed in the present intra court appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent
no.6 was ineligible for appointment on the post of Aganwari Worker as
per Clause-4 of the policy. Clause-4 of the policy is quoted as under:
^*¼4½ p;fur dh tkus okyh vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ dks uk rks
loa; ljdkjh [email protected]/kdkjh vkFkok iapk;rh jkt
[email protected]; fudk;ksa ds fuokZfpr vFkok euksuhr lnL;
gksuk pkfg;s vkSj uk gh p;u izfØ;k ls izR;{k laca/k j[kus
okyksa dh lxs laca/kh gksuk pkfg;sA lxs lacaf/k;ksa ls vfHkizk;
ekrk] firk] HkkbZ] cgu] ifr] ifRu] iq=] iq=h ,oa iq=o/kqA^*
10. According to the respondent no.6, she tendered resignation on 20-
08-2018 whereas the advertisement inviting applications for appointment
of Aganwadi Worker was issued on 21-08-2018. Thus, on the date of
consideration of the candidature, the respondent no.6 was not holding the
office of Corporator and after resignation, as per provision of Section
40 of Municipalities Act, 1961, the respondent no.6 was not ineligible.
The respondent no.6 was more meritorious than the appellant and
therefore, she was rightly selected initially. However, her selection was
wrongly set aside by the Selection Committee and the appellant was
directed to be appointed.
11. On reading the provisions of Section 40 of the Act, 1961, it is
clear that the resignation submitted by the respondent No.6 takes place
from the date she resigned from the office and therefore on the date of
submission of candidature, the respondent no.6 was not holding the
office of the Corporator and was not ineligible for appointment on the
post of Aganwadi worker. Further, there is no merit in the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant that even after participating in
the proceedings of selection committee the appellant was still receiving
the salary till November-December because the respondent no.6 has
stated in the reply that the said amount was directly deposited in her
account and was not received by her. The appeal filed by the appellant
has been dismissed by the Collector and thereafter the same has also been
affirmed by the Commissioner and the learned Single Judge. Thus, all
the authorities have recorded a finding that the respondent no.6 had
already tendered resignation on 20-08-2018 whereas the advertisement
inviting applications for appointment of Aganwadi worker was issued
on 21-08-2018. Further, the respondent no.6 had secured highest marks
i.e.73.8 whereas the appellant had secured only 53.8 marks in the merit.
12. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
hsp.
Digitally signed by
HAR SAHAY PATERIYA
Date: 2021.07.06
12:26:11 +05'30'
