Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajeshwari Bakode vs Smt. Vandana Soni on 29 March, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 29th OF MARCH, 2023
WRIT PETITION No.12450 OF 2020
BETWEEN:-
SMT. RAJESHWARI BAKODE W/O PAWAN KUMAR
BAKODE, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGANWADI WORKER, R/O AMBEDKAR WARD
LAKHNADOAN DISTRICT SEONI (MP)
......PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEVENDRARAJ SURYAWANSHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. VANDANA SONI W/O VIVEK SONI, R/O
NEAR DURGA MANDIR, JAIPRAKASH WARD
LAKHNADOAN, DISTRICT SEONI (MP)
2. COMMISSIONER THROUGH ADDITIONAL
COMMISSIONER, JABALPUR DIVISION,
JABALPUR (MP)
3. COLLECTOR SEONI (MP) PROJECT OFFICER,
EKIKRAT CHILD DEVELOPMENT
4. PROJECT LAKHNADOAN, DISTRICT SEONI (MP)
DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, EKIKRAT
CHILD
5. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LAKHNADOAN,
DISTRICT SEONI (MP)
......RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI DHANESH KANT TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 BY SHRI TAPAN BATHRE - PANEL LAWYER)
2
..............................................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 07.02.2023
Pronounced on : 29.03.2023
..............................................................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the
following:
ORDER
Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the
parties are ready to argue the matter, therefore, it is heard finally.
2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner assails the validity and correctness of the order dated
10.08.2020 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.2/Additional
Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, in case No.0257/Appeal/2018-
19.
3. Salient facts, which are necessary for disposal of this case are
that pursuant to the instructions issued by the respondents/department, an
advertisement was issued on 05.05.2017 inviting applications for
appointment on the vacant post of Anganwadi Karyakarta for Anganwadi
Centre No.14, Nagar Panchayat Lakhnadon and in pursuance thereto, 17
applications were received by the Selection Committee. Thereafter, the
Selection Committee after inviting objections published a provisional
merit-list, wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No.1 as she secured
63.3 marks whereas respondent No.1 was placed at serial No.2 as she
secured 47.8 marks and one Ku. Seema Yadav was placed at serial No.3 as
she secured 47.1 marks.
(3.1) Subsequently, respondent No.1 submitted her objection on
06.11.2017 about selection of the petitioner saying that she is a resident of
Ward No.15, but not of Ward No.14 for which appointment on the post of
Anganwadi Worker was made and as such, she is not entitled to be
appointed on the said post.
(3.2) On the objection raised by respondent No.1, the District
Selection Committee scrutinized the documents submitted by the
petitioner and finally observed that she is a resident of Ward No.15 and as
such, her placement at serial No.1 got cancelled and in her place,
respondent No.1 was placed at serial No.1 and accordingly, final list was
published appointing her on the post of Anganwadi Worker.
(3.3) Challenging the order passed by the District Selection
Committee, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, District
Seoni and in turn, the Collector, vide order dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure-
P/2) allowed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner/appellant therein
has already submitted the applications on 30.12.2016 and 02.05.2017 for
adding her name in the voter list of Ward No.14 and for deleting her name
from the voter list of Ward No.15 respectively. The Collector had also
observed that the appellant/petitioner along with her applications had
attached documents to establish that since House No.49/1 in which she is
residing finds place at Serial No.132 of Ward No.14, therefore, she prays
that her name may be added in Ward No.14. After hearing the submissions
of the parties and also on perusal of available documents, the Collector,
ultimately allowed the appeal holding that the petitioner is eligible to be
appointed on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta.
(3.4) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector on
13.12.2018, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Additional
Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur and in turn, the said authority
vide impugned order dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure-P/1) has allowed the
appeal, hence this petition.
4. Supporting the order passed by the Additional Commissioner,
respondent No.1 has filed reply to the petition. In the reply, it is mentioned
that on the date of submitting the application, since the petitioner does not
fulfil the criteria of local resident, therefore, the Commissioner has rightly
allowed the appeal. According to respondent No.1, the petition deserves
dismissal.
5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner, respondent Nos.2
to 5 have also filed a reply to the petition. According to them, the order
passed by the Additional Commissioner does not call for any interference
and as such, the petition deserves dismissal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a well
settled law that the authority had no right to presume something which was
not on record and as such, the order passed by the Additional
Commissioner, allowing the appeal of respondent No.1 is illegal. He
further submits that the documents filed by the petitioner before the
Additional Commissioner reveal that on 16.05.2017, she was residing at
House No.49/1 which finds place at Serial No.132 of Ward No.14 whereas
the respondents invited the applications for the post of Anganwadi
Karyakarta on 17.05.2017, meaning thereby on the date of submitting the
application, the petitioner was residing in Ward No.14. According to him,
the order passed by the Additional Commissioner deserves to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have
supported the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and submitted
that the petitioner deserves dismissal.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
9. The Additional Commissioner in its order has observed that in
the circular issued by the State Government on 10.07.2007, under the head
of requisite qualification, Clause (2) very categorically specified the
conditions under which appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta
is to be made. For ready reference Class (2) of the said circular reads as
under:-
"¼2½ vkosfndk lacaf/kr [email protected]; {ks= ds okMZ dh LFkk;h fuoklh gksuk
pkfg;sA
[email protected]; {ks= ds okMZ esa LFkk;h fuoklh ds izek.k ds fy;s jk'ku
[email protected]/kr [email protected]; {ks= ds okMZ dh v?kru ernkrk [email protected]?kru
chih,y lwph esa efgyk dk uke ntZ gksuk pkfg;s vFkok vfookfgr efgyk
gksus ij mlds firk dk uke rFkk fookfgr gksus ij mlds ifr dk uke ntZ
gksuk pkfg,A mDr nksuks Hkh miyC/k ugha gksus ij ,l-Mh-,[email protected] }kjk
tkjh LFkkuh; fuokl ds izek.k i= dks ekU; fd;k tk ldrk gSA"
The condition is very specific stipulating that the candidate must be a
permanent resident of respective ward for which appointment is to be
made and for that the candidate's name should in the ration card, voter-list
and BPL list. It is further clarified in the said clause that if a candidate is a
married lady, then her document contains the name of her husband and if
she is unmarried then her father's name should be there in the documents.
Admittedly, on the date of submitting the application for appointment to
the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta, the petitioner did not have such
qualification. However, she made the applications for inclusion of her
name in Ward No.14 and for deleting her name from Ward No.15, meaning
thereby, on the date of submitting the application, the petitioner was not
the resident of Ward No.14 and as such, the Collector committed illegality
giving her weightage only on the ground that she had moved applications
and wanted to be a resident of Ward No.14. The Additional Commissioner
while observing this fact in light of the aforesaid circular dated 10.07.2017
did nothing wrong and in fact his observation and finding were in
consonance with the requirement of circular dated 10.07.2017.
10. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.710 of
2019 [Nimubai Katare Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others] vide
order dated 09.09.2019 has considered this aspect and observed that
requirement of local resident and condition contained in the policy, in any
manner, cannot be said to be discriminative. The observation of the
Division Bench reads as under:-
"In light of the aforesaid, the condition of being the local resident is
not at all discriminatory as it has been held to be a valid condition
and as the appellant was the resident of same village in question, she
was certainly entitled for the appointment on the post of Aaganwadi
Worker. Resultantly, this writ appeal is allowed. The judgment
delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2019 passed in
Writ Petition No.16734/2018 is hereby set-aside. The
respondents/State are directed to appoint the appellant as 'Aaganwadi
Worker' within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of
this order."
11. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Additional
Commissioner did not commit any mistake in deciding the appeal in
favour of respondent No.1 holding her eligible to be appointed on the post
of Anganwadi Worker at Centre No.14, Nagar Panchayat Lakhnadon.
12. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Devashish
DEVASHISH MISHRA
2023.03.31 10:32:58
+05'30'
