Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Reena Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 4th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT APPEAL No. 104 of 2021
Between:-
SMT.REENA RAI W/O SHRI VRINDRAVAN RAI ,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
WORKING AS ANGANWADI WORKER R/O
GRAM BATTWAHA TEH, SHAHGARH, DISTT
SAGAR M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MOHD. ALI AND SHRI LALJI KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATES
)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT DEPTT, VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL M.P DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER SAGAR
DIVISION SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. UPPER COLLECTOR SAGAR SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER WOMEN
AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED CHILD
DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. SHAHGARH DISTT.
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
6. SMT. USHA DEVI YADAV W/O SHRI DEVI SINGH
SAN
Y A D A V R/O GRAM BATTWAHA TEH,
SHAHGARH, DISTT SAGAR M.P (MADHYA
Digitally signed by VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2022.07.05 12:33:21 IST
PRADESH)
2
7. SMT. NEHA AHIRWAR W/O SHRI PRADEEP
A H I R WA R R/O GRAM BATTWAHA TEH,
SHAHGARH, DISTT SAGAR M.P (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. SMT. PREETI RAI W/O SHRI RAGHUVEER RAI
R/O GRAM BATTWAHA TEH, SHAHGARH, DISTT
SAGAR M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ROHIT JAIN, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1
TO 5
SHRI S.D. MISHRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
Aggrieved by order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge
in dismissing W.P. No.17328/2020, the petitioner is in appeal.
The case of the petitioner is that she filed an application for appointment
to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta in Village Battwaha Tahsil Shahgarh
District Sagar on 26.10.2016. She secured 57.1 marks. Respondent No.6
secured 47.3 marks. Vide order dated 08.02.2017, the petitioner was appointed
to the said post. Challenging the same, the respondent No.6 filed an appeal
before the Collector, Sagar. Vide order dated 15.02.2018, the appeal was
dismissed. Challenging the same, second appeal was filed before the Additional
Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal in favour of
respondent No.6 and quashed the order of appointment of the petitioner.
Questioning the same, the instant writ petition was filed.
The learned Single Judge came to the view that the facts of the case do
not entitle the sustenance of the appointment order issued in favour of the
petitioner. The same was based on the fact that the petitioner was granted 10
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2022.07.05 12:33:21 IST
marks in view of the fact that she belonged to BPL (Below Poverty Line)
category. Therefore, 10 marks were added. The BPL certificate even though
was issued somewhere in the year 2003, was withdrawn by the orders of the
Tahsildar dated 24.12.2016. Therefore, as on the date of appointment namely
on 08.02.2017, the petitioner was not holding the BPL card. If the petitioner
was not holding the BPL card, then the grant of 10 marks to her was incorrect.
Therefore, if 10 marks is reduced to the marks that she has obtained, the next
person would be entitled for appointment. Hence, the writ petition was
dismissed.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that as on the date of
filing of the application, the petitioner was the holder of a BPL card, therefore,
she is entitled for grant of additional marks which has been granted to her. In
support of the case of the petitioner, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar
reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 (Para 6), Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2000) 5 SCC 262 (Para 13), Jasbir Rani v. State of Punjab, (2002) 1 SCC 124
(Para 11) and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India reported in (2007) 4 SCC
54 (Para 11 and 20).
So far as the question of law is concerned, there cannot be any dispute
with regard to the same.
The status of the petitioner as on the date of filing of the application or
the last date for filing such an application is undisputed. The judgments relied
upon are relatable to eligibility. However, as on the date of issuance of the
appointment order on 08.02.2017, the petitioner was not the holder of the BPL
card, therefore, the same, in our considered view, would make her ineligible for
Signature Not Verified
SAN
the appointment. The judgments relied upon are with reference to the eligibility
Digitally signed by VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
of a candidate based on the qualification or other factors. This is not a case of
Date: 2022.07.05 12:33:21 IST
eligibility of a candidate but an issue with regard to the ineligibility. Since 10
additional marks have been granted by the State for a special class of persons
and when the petitioner does not belong to that class of persons, necessarily the
marks awarded to her would be incorrect. Even otherwise, it is pleaded that the
withdrawal of the BPL of the petitioner is not appropriate. That he has
challenged the withdrawal of the BPL card before the Tahsildar which is
pending adjudication. It is her case that the BPL card has been wrongly
cancelled. Therefore, we are of the view that until and unless the status of the
petitioner is established whether she is entitled for the BPL card or not, it may
not be appropriate to permit her to continue in service. Therefore, the result of
the proceedings before the Tahsildar questioning the validity of the withdrawal
of the BPL card would determine the rights of the petitioner.
At this stage, we do not find it appropriate that the petitioner continues in
service. In case, she succeeds, she may be be entitled for all consequential
benefits from the date of her initial appointment. In the same way, we are of the
view that it may not be appropriate that any other eligible candidate also be
appointed so far as this selection process is concerned.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal is disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vinod
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2022.07.05 12:33:21 IST
