Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Anita Gond vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
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 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 335 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SMT ANITA GOND W/O BAHADUR GOND, AGED ABOUT
37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AAGANWADI WORKER R/O
VILLAGE CHOUPRA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI D.K. TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER SAGAR DIVISION SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR, PANNA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER WOMAN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED CHILD
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SMT. TULSA BAI GOND W/O SHRI RAMNARAYAN
GOND, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
CHOUPRA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 2/20/2024
1:05:06 PM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.S. CHAUHAN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge
in allowing the Writ Petition No.4970 of 2014, the respondent No.6 therein is in
appeal.
2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated
30.11.2013 passed in appeal by the respondent No.2 whereby the appeal
preferred by appellant-respondent No.6 was allowed. It is the case of the
petitioner that respondents have issued an advertisement inviting applications
for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gram Panchayat Sakariya, District Panna.
Petitioner as well as appellant-respondent No.6 and others have applied for the
same. After scrutiny of the documents, the petitioner was issued appointment
order dated 25.06.2017 at Anganwadi Kendra, Chopra. The petitioner joined
services in pursuance to the same. The appellant was not selected on the
ground that her husband was working as a Panch in the said Gram Panchayat,
therefore, in pursuance to Clause 4 of the policy/circular dated 27.05.2006
governing the appointment of Anganwadi Worker, she could not have been
appointed. The appellant raised objection. The said objection was rejected.
Therefore, an appeal was preferred before the Collector which was dismissed
on 01.04.2008. Thereafter, a second appeal was preferred before respondent
No.2 which was allowed vide order dated 30.11.2013 directing the authorities to
issue an appointment order in favour of the appellant-respondent No.6. The
same was assailed by the petitioner in filing a writ petition. The writ court taking
note of Clause 4 of the circular/policy dated 27.05.2006 has disposed off the
writ petition holding that the case of the respondent No.6 therein admittedly falls
within the category of the close relatives as her husband was a Panch in the said
Gram Panchayat. He being not a part of the selection committee will be of no
consequence, as the language of Clause 4 of the circular clearly indicates that
anybody nominated or appointed as a member of a Gram Panchayat will be
debarring his relatives to participate in the recruitment process. The writ petition
was allowed. Questioning the same, this writ appeal has been filed. It is argued
that although the husband of the appellant was a Panch in the Gram Panchayat
but he had no role to play in the recruitment process, as he was not the part of
the selection committee therefore, Clause 4 cannot earn any disqualification as
far as appellant is concerned.
3. Clause 4 of the aforesaid circular is relevant and is required to be seen
which reads as under :-
"p;fur dh tkus okyh vkaxuckMh dk;ZdrkZ dh p;u izfdz;k ds izR;{k
;k vizR;{k laca/k j[kus okys ljdkjh vFkok iapk;rh jkt
laLFkkvks@uxjh; fudk;ks ds fuokZfpr vFkok euksuhr lnL; vFkok
mlds lxs laca/kh ugha gksuk pkfg;sA lxs laca/kh ls vfHkizk; gS fd
'kkldh; vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ds firk&ekrk] HkkbZ&cgu] ifr&iRuh]
iq=&iq=h] llqj&lkl] lkyk ¼cznj bu yk¡½] nkekn ¼lu bu yk¡½] iq=
o/kqA"
4. Very language of the aforesaid clause makes it clear that whoever either
appointed or nominated as a member of the concerning Gram Panchayat who
being a close relative will not entitle the candidate to even participate in the
recruitment process of Anganwadi Worker. The word 'close relative' is defined
as father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, daughter, son, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law etc. Admittedly, appellant is the wife of the Panch of
the concerning Gram Panchayat. The language of Clause 4 makes it clear that
whoever being a close relative also will not be entitled to participate in the
recruitment process. The case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid
clause. The very argument raised by the counsel appearing for the appellant that
since he is not the part of the selection committee therefore, no prejudice will be
caused to any of the candidates and Clause 4 will not earn any disqualification
to be contrary to the very object of the guidelines governing the recruitment
process of the Anganwadi Worker.
5. The very purpose of introducing such a clause is to maintain transparency
in appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. The record further indicates
that immediately after selection and getting the appointment order in favour of
the appellant her husband tendered resignation from the post of Panch. This
also goes to show that every effort was made by him to get his wife appointed
as an Anganwadi Worker. The writ court took note of the aforesaid aspect of
the matter and has categorically held that the appellant falling under the
definition of the close relative and as her husband was the Panch in the
concerning Gram Panchayat, she was not even eligible to participate in the
recruitment process. The writ court has rightly analyzed all the aspects of the
matter and allowed the writ petition.
6. Counsel appearing for the appellant had placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Draupathi Tiwari
Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2013(2) MPLJ 407 to the effect that
if the member of the Panchayat is not the member of the selection committee
then there is no rider for participation in the selection process. The aforesaid
judgment by the Division Bench of this court was considered by the writ court
and to some extent the same was distinguished. The writ court heavily relied
upon Clause 4 of the guidelines dated 27.05.2006 governing the appointment of
the Anganwadi Worker. If the arguments of the appellant are to be accepted
then the very object and purpose of inserting such a clause in the form of
guidelines/circular would become redundant. There is no dispute with respect to
the fact that the appellant's husband was a Panch in the concerning Gram
Panchayat for which the post of Anganwadi Worker were advertised. It is also
not disputed that immediately after the appointment of the appellant for the post
of Anganwadi Worker her husband resigned from the post. It is not the case
that the resignation was tendered prior to even applying for the post of
Anganwadi Worker. The resignation was tendered by the husband of the
appellant after assurance that the appointment order has been issued in favour
of the appellant. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the husband
has resigned from the post in question in a bonafide manner. Rather every
attempt would have been made by him to get the wife appointed on the post of
Anganwadi Worker. It cannot be said that in a transparent manner the appellant
was granted appointment. Rather the husband being a member of the
concerning Gram Panchayat is a disqualification for the wife for even
participating in the recruitment process of the Anganwadi Worker for the said
Gram Panchayat. The writ court has rightly analyzed all the aspects of the case
and allowed the writ petition. No interference can be made in the well reasoned
order passed by the writ court.
7. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
8. Pending interlocutory application stands disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
SSL
