Smt. Savita Tiwaris vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5238 MP

                                                         1
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                ON THE 11th OF APRIL, 2022

                                          WRIT PETITION No. 24354 of 2019

                              Between:-
                              SMT. SAVITA TIWARIS W/O SHRI ARVIND KUMAR
                              TIWARI , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                              AGANWADI WORKER KARRI AAGANADI NO.4
                              JANPAD PANCHAYAT RAJNAGAR NO.1 (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                              (BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR VERMA, ADVOCATE)

                              AND

                      1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
                              PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
                              BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.      COMMISSIONER     SAGAR            DIVISION SAGAR
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.      COLLECTOR CHHATARUR DISTT. CHHATARPUR
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
                              RAJNAGAR NO. 1 DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                      5.      KU. KESH KALA D/O DILLA ADIVASI VILLAGE
                              KARRI RAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      6.      C.M.O. NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD NOWGAON
                              NOWGAON (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                              (BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                              (BY SHRI VIKAS MAHAWAR, RESPONDENT NO.5)

                            T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                          ORDER

This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 20.03.2019 (Annexure-P/6) passed by Additional Commissioner Sagar, Division Sagar whereby learned Additional Commissioner has remanded the matter to the

Signature Not Collector to ascertain as to whether certificates filed by the present petitioner SAN Verified Savita Tiwari W/o Shri Arvind Kumar Tiwari from the Chief Municipal Officer, Digitally signed by APARNA TIWARI Date: 2022.04.12 18:36:52 IST

Nagar Palika Nowgaon are genuine or not.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's case has been scrutinized not once but thrice.

Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a

communication dated 28.08.2019 made by the Sub Divisional Officer Police Khajuraho, District Chhatarpur to the Superintendent of Police, District Chhatarpur in regard to complaint made by respondent No.5 Keshkala Adiwasi. Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur addressed to the Collector as is contained in Annexure P/9 dated 15.10.2019 but private respondent is trying to create hurdles in appointment of the present petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner and, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner is liable to be set aside. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Naseem Bano Vs. State of U.P. and Others 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 46 to submit that if pleadings are not specifically denied then they are to be accepted to be correct.

Placing reliance on this material, it is submitted that order of remand is arbitrary and unjust and be set aside.

Shri Vikas Mahawar, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in his turn submits that petitioner had filed an application Annexure-R-5/1 in which column of experience has been left blank. It is further submitted that Annexure-P/1 filed by the petitioner is of the year 2016 and is a forged document, though date is mentioned as 31.10.2006 but number of the document is mentioned as No./1563/na.pa./2016.

Similarly, it is submitted that he has received a communication under Right to Information to demonstrate that letter No.222 is not the same as has been received by him. It is further submitted that in fact, Annexure-R-5/9 is a document which is enclosed by the petitioner to show that he had furnished his testimonials in time but that is a document in regard to Rashan Card as is evident from Annexure- R-5/10 and is not a document to show that petitioner had furnished her documents to the competent authority in time.

It is submitted that petitioner has resorted to falsehood and therefore, appropriate proceedings be drawn against her invoking authority under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in his turn submits that petitioner has filed a rejoinder and along with the rejoinder she has enclosed copy of Annexure-P/8 which demonstrates that petitioner had filed experience certificate pertaining to 'Didi' of Sishu Siksha Kendra. It is further submitted that since petitioner is more meritorious, thus has been granted appointment but respondent No.5 is making

false complaints so to deny her genuine play.

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 at this stage, points out that in the order sheet dated 05.09.2018 before the Additional Commissioner Sagar, Division Sagar, it is clearly mentioned that present petitioner had refused to accept the notice. It is submitted that since petitioner had refused to accept the notice therefore, she cannot raise any grievance in regard to not affording her any opportunity of hearing before the Additional Commissioner.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it is evident that there is a dispute in regard to experience certificate produced by the petitioner from Chief Municipal Officer, Nawgaon showing her to possess experience of 'Didi' at Sishu Siksha Kendra. Learned Additional Commissioner has referred to certain communications made by the Chief Municipal Officer and also the information obtained by the private respondent under Right to Information Act causing serious doubt about authenticity of the certificates allegedly issued by the Chief Municipal Officer Nowgaon.

In view of such facts when the only bone of contention between the petitioner and private respondent is grant of 10 marks on account of experience allegedly obtained by the petitioner on account of her working as 'Didi' in a Sishu Siksha Kendra with effect from 2001-2006, in the maiden name of the present petitioner namely Ku. Savita Sulere then the order of the Additional Commissioner cannot be faulted with in remanding the matter to the Collector to obtain authentic information as to whether petitioner whose maiden name was Savita Sulere had worked as 'Didi' between 2001-2006 or not. As there is no shortcoming or

arbitrariness in the impugned order, it is directed that petitioner or respondent No.5 shall submit copy of the order being passed today before the Collector Chhatarpur to proceed with the enquiry in terms of the remand order dated 20.03.2019 and complete said enquiry within a period of 30 days' and decide as to whether the certificate issued in favour of the present petitioner for working as Didi is correct or not.

If it is found that certificate is correct then without showing any further indulgence, appointment of the petitioner shall be confirmed and if it is found that certificate furnished by the petitioner was incorrect, forged or concocted then respondent/ Collector shall at once set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner and shall issue appointment order to the person who stands second to the petitioner in the order of merit.

With aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE AT