Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Preeti Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 March, 2022
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
:: 1 :: W.P.No.3520/2022 (Smt. Preeti Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.
and others)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT GWALIOR
Writ Petition No.3520/2022
Smt. Preeti Dhakad ...PETITIONER
versus
State of M.P. and others ...RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
Shri Sourav Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Padamshree Agarwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri B.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 on caveat.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 25.3.2022 28.10.2015
Date of decision : 29/03/2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(29/03/2022)
:: 2 :: W.P.No.3520/2022 (Smt. Preeti Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.
and others)
Per Milind Ramesh Phadke, J.
(1) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India had been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated
20/01/2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division,
Gwalior and in consequence thereof relieving order dated 01/02/2022
of the petitioner was passed by Project Officer, I.C.D.S, Pohari,
whereby while allowing the appeal of respondent no.6, the order
dated 11/02/2021 passed by Additional Collector was reversed and
the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Aanganwadi Worker
was cancelled, holding that the petitioner does not belong to the
category of persons who are living below poverty line, as the BPL
card submitted alongwith the application was not issued in her name
rather was in the name of her father-in-law, therefore, 10 marks
awarded to her in that category was not justified and in consequence
thereof 10 marks out of total secured marks were deducted and the
petitioner was held to be disqualified and later she was relieved. In
furtherance thereof respondent No.6 was appointed on her post.
(2) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter
was finally heard at motion stage.
(3) The facts which are admitted and are necessary for adjudication
are that on an advertisement in the year 2019 applications were called
for filling up the post of Aanganwadi Worker, at Aanganwadi Centre
No.821, Village Ramgarh, Tehsil Pohri, District Shivpuri. After
scrutiny a provisional list dated 26/10/2019 (Annexure P/4) of the 9
candidates, who had applied for the said post was prepared in
accordance with clause Aa-2 of policy 10/07/2007 and objections
were called as per clause Sa-3. Vide letter dated 12/11/2019 the
Committee formed for the resolution of the said objections as per
clause Sa-4 of the policy, while deciding the objections final list was
:: 3 :: W.P.No.3520/2022 (Smt. Preeti Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.
and others)
published and the petitioner being on the top of the list was issued the
appointment letter dated 13/03/2020, by the Project Officer.
Aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, respondent no.6
preferred an appeal before the Collector, on the ground that without
any inquiry, BPL card submitted by the petitioner was held to be
genuine and 10 marks were given under that head, which was not
justified and was prayed that after deducting the said marks her
candidature be cancelled and she be given appointment. The said
appeal was dismissed by the Additional Collector. Against which a
second appeal was preferred by respondent no.6 before Additional
Commissioner. The said appeal was allowed and it was held that since
the BPL card is in the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner and
not in her husband's name, she is not entitled for 10 marks under that
head and also since the committee had proposed to initiate action in
lieu of the certificate for Asha Worker not found to be correct, the
appointment of petitioner cannot be said to be legal and it was
directed that respondent no.6 be appointed in place of the petitioner.
Aggrieved, the present petition had been filed.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the BPL card was
admittedly issued in the name of father-in-law of the petitioner and
after scrutiny the same was found to be genuine and was found to be
eligible for consideration, in the meeting of the committee convened
on 03/01/2020 and further no inquiry was required to be done with
regard to the BPL card. It was vehemently argued that so far as
observation of the Committee for taking action against the petitioner
with regard to her experience certificate, is concerned, it is the
prerogative and domain of the department to initiate any action. As
per the policy it is only after a proper inquiry any action could be
taken against the petitioner and as such respondent no.6 is in no way
concerned about initiation of any action against the petitioner, thus,
:: 4 :: W.P.No.3520/2022 (Smt. Preeti Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.
and others)
argued that the finding in this regard is bad in law.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bibhudatta
Mohanty Vs. Union of India and others, (2002) 4 SCC 16 and
argued that whenever any appointment which is wrongly set aside
stands correct then any consequential action taken thereof in
pursuance thereof cannot sustain and cannot stand. He has placed
reliance on para 15 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"15. Without properly examining the contents
of the counter-affidavit the High Court sustained
the order of the Tribunal. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that the selection
of the appellant was wrongly set aside. Insofar
as the selection of Respondent 5 is concerned,
that is a consequential action and it cannot stand
as the impugned orders of setting aside the
selection and the appointment of the appellant
are held to be bad. Therefore, the selection of
Respondent 5 automatically falls to the ground.
The impugned orders of the High Court
maintaining the order of the Tribunal are set
aside. The appellant shall be reinstated into
service within one month from today with
continuity of service. However, he will not be
entitled to any pay for the period he remained
out of service. The appeals are accordingly
allowed. No costs."
(6) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 had drawn
attention of this Court at Annexure P/4, which is the provisional list
of the candidates and with vehemence had argued that the BPL card
:: 5 :: W.P.No.3520/2022 (Smt. Preeti Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.
and others)
submitted by the petitioner is a forged document so far as the
petitioner doesn't come under the category of below poverty line
rather her status is of above poverty line, which could be gathered
from the category mentioned of the candidate at S.No.7 Smt. Sandhya
Dhakad, who happens to be the sister-in-law of the petitioner and her
category had been mentioned as APL. She is the daughter of
Shivnarayn Dhakad, in whose name the BPL card submitted by the
petitioner was issued and it is not possible that a person can be of
both BPL & APL category at the same time. It was further argued
that since both the petitioner and Smt. Sandhya Dhakad belong to one
family and the headman of the family is shown to be Shivnarayan
Dhakad, which would be evident from copy of the Samagra ID
submitted alongwith reply at page 22, and just for taking advantage of
the BPL category another Samagra ID was generated, which is
appended at page 26 of the reply, the BPL card being a forged
document could not have been relied. Reliance was placed on an
unreported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.
Jayaram & other Vs. Bangalore Development Authority & others
passed in Civil Appeal No.7550-7553/2021 dated 08/12/2021 on a
proposition that a person approaching a writ court must come with
clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without
concealing or suppressing anything.
(7) Further, it was also argued that after the removal of the
petitioner, respondent no.6 had been appointed as Aanganwadi
Worker, Aanganwadi Centre Ramgarh and since then she is working
on the said post, and therefore, learned Additional Commissioner was
justified in allowing the appeal, thus, no interference is required in
the matter and the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.
(8) Heard the learned counsel for the parties at extenso.
(9) It appears that the learned Additional Commissioner have not
:: 6 :: W.P.No.3520/2022 (Smt. Preeti Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.
and others)
gone through the BPL card, which is a card issued to a family and not
to an individual, the heading itself is "Parivar Patra" and is issued to
families who are living below poverty line as specified by the State
Government. Column No.1 finds mention of the head of the family
i.e. Shivnarayan Dhakad and Column 4 finds mentions about his
number i.e. 10073 in the list of poverty line survey list of 2006. On
the reverse of the card name of the petitioner is mentioned as a family
member i.e. daughter-in-law, thus, by no stretch of imagination the
finding of the learned Additional Commissioner that since the BPL
card is in the name of father-in-law of the petitioner and not even in
the name of her husband, she is not entitled for 10 marks as provided
in the policy, is not justified and cannot be sustained.
(10) Further, the argument of the learned counsel for respondent
No.6 that the name of sister-in-law of the petitioner appearing in one
of the Samagra ID's of the year 2013, indicates that she was the
member of the family and in the provisional list her category is shown
to be that of above poverty line and since her name is missing from
Samagra ID of the year 2019, the BPL card itself is doubtful, is
beyond the context of the present controversy, as the status of a
married sister-in-law cannot be a factor to judge the status of the
petitioner and if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the status
of sister-in-law of the petitioner was APL, would not ipso facto create
doubt about the BPL status of the petitioner. Reliance place on the
matter of K. Jayaram & others (supra) by Counsel of Respondent No.
6 is misplaced, as it is based upon different factual matrix and has no
bearing on the facts of the present case.
(11) In the backdrop of above factual matrix and the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the
findings of the learned Additional Commissioner are perverse and
deserves to be set aside. In consequence thereof all consequential
:: 7 :: W.P.No.3520/2022 (Smt. Preeti Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.
and others)
orders would fall and are held to be bad.
(12) Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated
20/01/2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division,
Gwalior is set aside and all consequential orders thereof are also set
aside. The appointment of the petitioner as Aanganwadi Worker is
restored with immediate effect. No orders as to cost.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
29/03/2022
Pawar*
ASHISH PAWAR
2022.03.29
16:30:43 +05'30'
