Shyam Manjiri Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 13314 MP

                                  1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT GWALIOR
                             BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                      CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

                 ON THE 11th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                   WRIT APPEAL No. 12 of 2015

BETWEEN:-
SHYAM MANJIRI SHARMA S/O SHRI RAM KISHORE
SHARMA, AGED 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION-NIL, R/O
VILLAGE GIJORA, TAHSIL-MEHGAON, DISTRICT
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI D.P.SINGH - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
      SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMAN &
      CHILD DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
      MADHYA    PRADESH, VALLABH  BHAWAN,
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE COMMISSIONER, CHAMBAL DIVISION,
      DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    SMT. CHANDRAVATI W/O SHRI BRAHMAKUMAR
      SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE GIJORA, TAHSIL-
                                       2

      MEHGAON,        DISTRICT      BHIND      (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANKUR MODY- ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3/STATE AND SHRI N.K.GUPTA - LEARNED SENIOR
COUNSEL WITH SHRI S.D.SINGH - LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.4)
............................................................................................
   This appeal coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Anand Pathak passed the following:
                               JUDGMENT

Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 2 (i) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by order dated 26-09-2014 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6992/2012(s).

2. In the writ petition, appellant/ petitioner challenged the order dated 04-07-2012 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena; whereby, appeal filed by respondent No. 4 has been allowed setting aside the order passed by the Collector dated 27-01-2012, cancelling the appointment of appellant (petitioner therein) as Aanganwadi Karyakarta, Village Gijura issued by Project Officer.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that appellant and respondent No. 4 had applied for appointment as Aanganwadi Karyakarta. Respondent No. 4 had secured 35.5 % aggregate marks; whereas, appellant has secured 41.5% of marks; however, in the final list, respondent No. 4 was shown above the appellant with 45.7 % of marks. It was the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.

4 was given the benefit of 10 marks purportedly in the light of circulars dated 10-07-2017 and 23-07-2009 issued by State Government. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, respondent No. 4 could not have been extended the benefit of 10 marks looking to the experience certificate submitted by her; which shows that respondent No. 4 has teaching experience as Assistant Teacher from July, 1998 to March, 2005.

4. Being aggrieved by appointment of respondent No. 4, appellant preferred appeal before the Collector, Bhind upon which the Collector called a report from the office of District Programme Officer, Mahila Evam Bal Vikas based whereupon, it was found that respondent No. 4 was not entitled so as to be awarded 10 additional marks. As a result, her appointment was cancelled.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. The Commissioner with reference to subsequent circular issued by State Government dated 23-07-2009 has found that award of 10 marks to the respondent No. 4 cannot be said to be contrary to the circular and therefore, the order of Collector was set aside. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred writ petition before this Court which stood dismissed vide impugned order, hence, appellant is before this Court.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is two fold; first, the case of respondent No. 4 did not fall under any of the categories of experience, which is quite apparent from the categories of experience as provided in the policy and therefore, respondent No. 4 was not entitled for award of 10 additional marks towards experience and secondly, that Collector, Bhind upon detailed enquiry found that award of 10 additional

marks is contrary to policy itself and therefore, appointment of respondent No. 4 as Aanganwadi Karyakarta is bad in law.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No. 4 opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.

9. This is a case where, appellant is taking exception to order dated 26- 09-2014 passed by learned writ Court in W.P. No. 6992/2012(s). Glancing over the impugned order reveals that object of appointment of Aanganwadi Worker is discussed in detail in impugned order and discussion indicates that respondent No. 4 was more qualified so far as educational qualification is concerned. Although, it appears that private respondent No. 4 earlier worked in a private school and therefore, as per the Guidelines dated 107/2007 issued by Woman and Child Development vide Annexure P/4 and later on clarified by circular dated 23-07-2009, case of private respondent No. 4 does not fit in but at the same time, it does not exclude those teachers who are working in private schools. A teacher in school takes care of education of children and therefore, her experience for this particular case can be roped in just like the experience gained by teacher of any Balwadi or Shishu Shiksha Kendra. Therefore, no case for interference is made out under writ jurisdiction per se.

10. Learned writ Court rightly dealt with the controversy and therefore, requires no interference. Hence, appeal stands dismissed; however, with a clarification that incorporation of qualification of private respondent No. 4 pertaining to her experience in private school and subsequently taking into consideration cannot be construed as law laid down as widening of

qualification parameters as prescribed in Guideline dated 10-07-2007 and circular dated 23-07-2009. This order is being passed by this Court in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Question shall remain open and shall be explained in some other case.

11. Appeal stands dismissed while affirming the order dated 26-09-2014 passed by learned writ Court in W.P. No. 6992/2012(s).

               (RAVI MALIMATH)                                                                (ANAND PATHAK)
                CHIEF JUSTICE                                                                    JUDGE

               jps/-

JAI
          Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
          DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
          BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
          PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,



PRAKASH
          st=Madhya Pradesh,

2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec86 5c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB 2193780D8357,

SOLANKI serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072 A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2022.10.14 18:47:05 +05'30'