Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 September, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
W.A. No. 750/2021
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
(DIVISION BENCH)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 750/2021
Ranu Singh
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice,
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ? Yes/No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Malti Dadariya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ashish Anand Barnad, learned Deputy Advocate General for
the respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State.
Shri Anil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(JABALPUR, DATED: 03.09.2021)
Per: Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
The present intra-court appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of
the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2021
(Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.
No. 14080/2019 (Savita Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.), whereby the
learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent
No.6, Savita Singh (writ petitioner) and order dated 06.07.2019 passed by
the Commissioner - Shahdol, Division Shahdol has been set-aside and
the orders passed by the Collector - Shahdol District Shahdol dated
13.12.2016 and 10.05.2018 are upheld.
W.A. No. 750/2021
2. The facts of the case are that for the post of Anganwadi Worker in
Grampanchayat Bhakura, Tehsil Jaisinghnagar, District Shahdol,
applications were invited and the last date for submission of form was
fixed as 27.10.2014. The appellant (respondent No.6 in the writ petition)
as well as writ petitioner (respondent no.6 herein) applied for the same.
Admittedly, at the time of submission of application form, the appellant
was not having her caste certificate but she was having the caste
certificate of her father and husband. The selection committee on the
basis of the affidavit submitted by the appellant on 23.06.2015 and on the
basis of the caste certificate of her husband and her father selected the
appellant on being securing highest marks i.e. 49.40 marks. The
petitioner/respondent No.6 Savita Singh secured 49 marks and therefore,
the appellant claims that the appellant has secured higher marks than the
writ petitioner and therefore, she was entitled for appointment in place of
the writ petitioner Savita Singh.
3. The appointment was challenged before the Collector, Shahdol by
the writ petitioner/respondent No.6 Savita Singh on the ground that since
the appellant did not file her caste certificate alongwith the application
form, therefore, she was not entitled to get five (5) marks towards the
caste being Scheduled Tribe. The Collector, Shahdol remanded the matter
by order dated 13.12.2016 directing the appointing authority to re-
consider the matter. Thereafter, in the light of the order of collector, the
order appointment of Savita Singh was issued on 07.03.2017, pursuant to
which she joined on 08.03.2017.
W.A. No. 750/2021
4. The appointment of Savita Singh was challenged by the present
appellant Ranu Singh before the Collector - Shahdol and the Collector -
Shahdol while dismissing the appeal of Ranu Singh has held that the
appellant is not entitled to get five (05) marks towards the caste as the
caste certificate was not produced alongwitht her application form. It was
also held by the Collector Shahdol in his order dated 10.05.2018, that
Savita Singh was not entitled to get five (05) marks towards BPL.
5. The appeal of the appellant - Ranu Singh before the Collector was
dismissed on 07.03.2017 maintaining the appointment of the writ
petitioner, Savita Singh on the post of Anganwadi Worker. The said order
of the Collector was challenged by the present appellant before the
Additional Commissioner, Shahdol who has set-aside the order of the
Collector, Shahdol holding that the appellant is entitled to get five (05)
marks towards the caste and it is no where disputed that she did not
belong to the Scheduled Tribe community. It is held by the Additional
Commissioner, Shahdol that she disclosed in the application form that
she belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community and she has also submitted
an affidavit. Later on since she submitted her caste certificate having
secured the highest marks, it is held that Ranu Singh is entitled to get
appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker.
6. The order of Additional Commissioner, dated 06.07.2019 was
challenged by the respondent No.6/writ petitioner Savita Singh in the
writ Court, on the ground that since the caste certificate was not produced
by Ranu Singh alongwith her application form, therefore, the same
cannot be considered later on.
W.A. No. 750/2021
7. The last date of submission of the application form on the post of
Anganwadi Worker in the Grampanchayat Tetka, Tehsil Jaisingh Nagar,
District Shahdol, was 27.10.2014. The appellant/respondent No.6 applied
for issuance of caste certificate on 30.12.2015 and she filed the caste
certificate issued by the S.D.O. on 22.02.2017. The caste certificate
which was filed after the cut off date cannot be considered.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.6/writ petitioner
supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted
that the issue, that the caste certificate has to be filed alongwith the
application for appointment has been decided by this Court. He has
placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Draupati Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 2013(2) MPLJ 407, wherein it
has been held that "once the cut off date is prescribed, every candidate
must fulfill the eligibility conditions on the cut off date prescribed.
Eligibility conditions are to be examined only and only on the date of
submission of the form and not otherwise". The said case was also
relating to the appointment of Anganwadi Worker under the same scheme
and in the said case also the necessary certificate was not filed alongwith
the application form.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6/petitioner also relied on
the order dated 07.02.2019 passed in W.P. No. 3603/2013 (Smt. Kalpana
Garg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.). In the said case also, referring to the
same circular/scheme of Anganwadi Worker, learned Single Bench has
held that as per the scheme, to take the benefit of the caste, the certificate
W.A. No. 750/2021
issued by the competent authority is required to be annexed with the
application form. The similar view has been taken by the learned Single
Judge of the Indore Bench of this Court in its order dated 09.07.2019
passed in W.P. No. 11786/2018 (Smt. Seemabai Vs. Smt. Pavitra Bai &
Ors.), whereby the learned Single Bench after referring the judgment
passed in the case of Draupati Bai (Supra) as well as the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs.
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2013)11 SCC 58 held that "the
eligibility conditions of the candidate participating in the selection
process are to be examined only and only on the last date of submission
of the application form and not otherwise.
10. Thus, as per the aforesaid judgments the petitioner has to submit
her caste certificate at the time of submitting her application form and she
could not be permitted to submit the same after the cut-off date".
10. In the present case admittedly the caste certificate was not filed
alongwith the application form which was required to be filed alongwith
the application form as per the scheme of the Anganwadi Workers
appointment.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality or
perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Bench, warranting
any interference in the present intra-court appeal. The same is
accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amitabh
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN
Date: 2021.09.08 14:48:22 +05'30'
