Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anita Dawar vs Aayukt on 14 August, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 20236 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ANITA DAWAR D/O SARDARSINGH DAVAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGANWANDI KARYAKARTA (SEVA MUKT), GRAM
SONYAKHEDI, TEHSIL SARDARPUR, DISTRICT DHAR, R/O GRAM
SONYAKHEDI, TEHSIL SARDARPUR, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ANAND AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE.)
AND
AAYUKT, INDORE SAMBHAG, INDORE, MOTIMAHAL INDORE
1.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. UPPER COLLECTOR, DHAR, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
PARIYOJNA ADHIKARI, EKIKRAT BAL VIKAS PARIYOJNA
3.
SARDARPUR NO. 1 DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
CHANCHAL W/O MUKESH PATEL, GRAM SONYAKHEDI, TEHSIL
4.
SARDARPUR, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUDARSHAN JOSHI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
[1] Heard on the question of admission.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-08-2023
17:42:42
[2] The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved
by order dated 27.08.2020 passed by Collector, District Dhar whereby
the first appeal filed by respondent No.4 has been allowed and
appointment of the petitioner to the post of Aanganwadi Worker dated
25.02.2019 has been set aside. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which has been
dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2023 hence, petitioner is before this
Court by way of writ petition.
Facts of the case in short are as under:
[3] An advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of
Aanganwadi worker in Up-Aanganwadi Center, Sonyakhedi, in which
including petitioner and respondent No.4 total 6 applications were
received, the office of Project Officer, ICDS, Sardarpur-I prepared a
provisional merit list in which present petitioner was placed at serial
No.1 by securing 53.1 marks, the respondent No.4 was placed at serial
No.2 by securing 49.0 marks, the petitioner was given 10 marks of BPL
category as she filed a BPL certificate of her father. The respondent
No.4 raised an objection that the petitioner is a married lady and not
residing in village Sonyakhedi with her husband therefore, 10 marks
have wrongly been given to her. The objection was upheld by a
Committee and vide order dated 31.01.2019, objection was considered
and the respondent No.4 was appointed as Aanganwadi Worker, of
Aanganwadi Center, Sonyakhedi.
[4] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 31.01.2019 the
present petitioner preferred an appeal in which without giving notice to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-08-2023
17:42:42
the respondent No.4 the appellate authority vide order dated 02.02.2019
set aside the appointment of respondent No.4. The Project Officer issued
an appointment order dated 25.02.2019 in favour of the petitioner Anita
Dawar. Being aggrieved by order dated 02.02.2019 and 25.02.2019, an
appeal was preferred by the respondent No.4.
[5] The learned Commissioner vide order dated 18.12.2019 set
aside the order dated 26.02.2019 and remanded the matter back to the
Additional Collector for deciding afresh after giving an opportunity of
hearing. The Additional Collector found that the petitioner wrongly
procured the employment by using the BPL card of her father. She being
a married lady was not entitled to get the benefit of 10 marks of BPL
card of his father and if the 10 marks are not given then the respondent
No.4 is more meritorious and she is a resident of Gram Sonyakhedi
hence, set aside the appointment of the present petitioner and directed
Panchayat to issue an appointment order in favour of respondent No.4.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the
Commissioner by way of a second appeal which came to be dismissed
vide order dated 31.07.2020.
I have heard Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
[6] As per the merit list, this petitioner secured 53.1 marks as
she was given 10 marks of BPL category whereas the respondent No.4
is more meritorious as she secured 39 marks for 12th passed and 10
marks for B.Com and secured 49.0 marks. So far as the BPL category is
concerned, the present petitioner was married to one Rohit Mandloi on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-08-2023
17:42:42
24.04.2017 and according to the petitioner both were separated by
execution of divorce deed on 02.05.2018 and thereafter, she is living
with her father, therefore, she is entitled for 10 marks.
[7] This notarized deed of divorce is not recognized under the
law, hence it cannot be held that the petitioner took a divorce from her
husband and same was executed on 02.05.2018 just before the date on
which advertisement was issued on 19.06.2018. It appears that in order
to get an employment as a deserted lady living with father because one
post of Aanganwadi Worker in Sonyakhedi Center became vacant this
deed was personally got executed. The BPL card in which the name of
the petitioner is there is in the name of Sardar Singh i.e. father when this
petitioner was married, she could not be treated as member of family of
Sardar Singh. The Additional Collector has observed that the petitioner
was avoiding appearance before him to hide her pregnancy as she was
living with her husband.
Both the learned authorities i.e. First Appellate Authority as well as
Second Appellate Authority have correctly examined the record and held
that the petitioner is not entitled for 10 marks, therefore, in writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petition is not liable to
be interfered with.
[8] The Apex Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in
Karnataka and another v/s Somyashree reported in (2021) 12 Supreme
Court Cases 20 has held as under:
16. Apart from the above one additional aspect needs to be
noticed, which the High Court has failed to consider. It is to be
noted that the deceased employee died on 25-3-2012. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-08-2023
17:42:42
respondent herein original writ petitioner at that time was a
married daughter. Her marriage was subsisting on the date of
the death of the deceased i.e. on 25-3-2012. Immediately on
the death of the deceased employee, the respondent initiated
the divorce proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 on 12-9-2012 for decree of divorce by
mutual consent. By judgment dated 20-3-2013, the learned
Principal Civil Judge, Mandya granted the decree of divorce by
mutual consent. That immediately on the very next day i.e. on
21-3-2013, the respondent herein on the basis of the decree of
divorce by mutual consent applied for appointment on
compassionate ground.
17. The aforesaid chronology of dates and events would
suggest that only for the purpose of getting appointment on
compassionate ground the decree of divorce by mutual consent
has been obtained. Otherwise, as a married daughter she was
not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground.
Therefore, looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, otherwise also the High Court ought not to have
directed the appellants to consider the application of the
respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground as
"divorced daughter". This is one additional ground to reject the
application of the respondent for appointment on
compassionate ground.
[9] I do not find any illegality in both the aforesaid orders i.e.
order dated 27.08.2020 passed by Collector, District Dhar and order
dated 31.07.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner hence, admission
is declined and accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-08-2023
17:42:42
