Madhya Pradesh High Court
Geeta Kori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.20410/2021
(Geeta Kori Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)
Gwalior Bench, Dated : 11.04.2022
Shri K.N.Gupta, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rinku
Shakya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
None for respondent No.5 though served.
Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
filed by petitioner against the order dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure P/1)
passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in
Case No.52/2021-22/vihy, whereby appeal preferred by respondent
No.5 is being allowed and appointment of petitioner as Anganwadi
Worker whereby order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Collector,
District Ashoknagar is set aside and consequently, appointment of
petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Worker is being set aside and in
her place, respondent No.5 was given appointment.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner alongwith
respondent No.5 appeared in the fray for appointment on the post of
Anganwadi Worker in response to the advertisement issued on
10.07.2015 (Annexure P/2), wherein last date for filling up application
was 25.07.2015.
3. As per the Circular dated 10.07.2007 (vide Annexure P/6)
distribution of marks/parameter have been provided in Clause v&2
(v) in which 10 marks are to be given a candidate, if she is graduate.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.20410/2021
(Geeta Kori Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)
At the time of filling of form i.e. 25.07.2015, respondent No.5 did not
complete her graduation and her result was declared subsequent to it
on 04.08.2015.
4. It appears that initially, as per merit list prepared by the
Appointment Committee, petitioner scored 51.7 marks, whereas
respondent No.5 scored 50.09 marks and being more meritorious,
therefore, appointment was proposed for petitioner. Being aggrieved
by the said proposal, respondent No.5 filed an objection in which she
referred the fact that she was appearing in B.A. Final Year
Examination and her result was awaited. Since her result was declared
belatedly on 04.08.2015, therefore, she is entitled to be considered as
graduate candidate and therefore, her candidature be considered
accordingly. Committee considered the said aspect and included 10
marks in her candidature and therefore, with inclusion of 10 marks,
she stood first with 60.9 marks and declared as eligible for
appointment.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred appeal
before the Collector and raised the point that at the time of last date for
filling up the form i.e. 25.07.2015, respondent No.5 was not eligible to
receive 10 marks on the point of being graduate because result of her
B.A. Final was declared on 05.08.2015 in which her result was
declared on 09.07.2015 in which her result was withheld due to some
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.20410/2021
(Geeta Kori Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)
reasons and later on, her result was declared on 04.08.2015. Therefore,
at the time of filling up the form, she was not eligible and therefore,
Committee has erroneously awarded 10 marks to her status as graduate
whether at that point of time when form was filled up she was not
entitled to get said marks.
6. The Collector vide order dated 22.03.2021 passed the order in
which appeal of petitioner was allowed and appointment of respondent
No.5 was cancelled. Being aggrieved by the said order of the
Collector, respondent No.5 preferred appeal before the Commissioner,
Gwalior Division, Gwalior in which the Commissioner allowed appeal
preferred by respondent No. 5 and set aside the order passed by the
Collector. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
7. It is the submission of learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner that question of date of appointment of qualification is
involved in the present case wherein petitioner received 51.7 marks,
whereas respondent No.5 received 50.9 marks. So far as inclusion of
10 marks in total tally of marks for respondent No.5 is concerned, she
is not entitled to receive such marks in her tally because last date of
filling up the form was on 25.07.2015, whereas result of respondent
No.5 was declared on 04.08.2015. Therefore, at the time of declaration
of result, she was not a graduate and therefore, she was not entitled to
receive marks in this regard. He placed the judgments of the Apex
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.20410/2021
(Geeta Kori Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)
Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs. Chander
Shekhar, 1993 (Supp.2) SCC 611, Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2013 (11) SCC 58 and State of
Bihar & Ors. Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan & Anr., 2021 Legal (SC)
920 in support of his submissions. It is further submitted that
judgment relied upon by respondent No.5 in case of Smt. Renu Devi
Vs. Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena, 2016 (4) MPLJ 223
is not applicable in the present set of facts because in the said case,
candidate acquired qualification before cut-off date, whereas in the
present case, candidate acquired the qualification after cut-off date. He
prayed for setting aside the impugned order and seeks appointment of
petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Worker, Gram Rawarsar, District
Ashoknagar.
8. At this stage, when the matter was dictated in open Court then
Shri K.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.5 caused his
appearance. According to him, result of graduation was declared prior
to last date of filling of form but after result being held up and later
on, University declared the result of respondent No.5. Therefore, for
all practical purposes, she was a graduate. It is to be seen with the fact
that she was eligible practically for all purposes to be considered as
graduate. He seeks' time for further instructions in this regard.
9. As prayed, list the case on 21.04.2022 at Item No.1 to apprise
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.20410/2021
(Geeta Kori Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)
this Court about reason why the result of respondent No.5 was
withheld.
(Anand Pathak)
AK/- Judge
ANAND KUMAR
2022.04.12
09:59:10 +05'30'
