Madhya Pradesh High Court
Savita Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1786 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SAVITA TIWARI W/O SHRI RAMESHWAR TIWARI, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O KAKAWANI,
DISTRICT NIWADI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKSHIT SAIGAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR/DISTRICT PROGRAM
OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT NIWADI DISTRICT NIWADI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PROJECT OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN
AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT PRITHVIPUR NIWADI
DISTRICT NIWADI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. SHANTI KUSHWAHA W/O SHRI BAGCHAND
KUSHWAHA R/O VILLAGE KAKAWANI DISTRICT
NIWADI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANKIT AGRAWAL - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 3)
(BY SHRI D.C. MALLIK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated
08/12/2023 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Dy. Collector/Incharge District
Programme Officer, Women and Child Development, Distt. Niwadi in Case
No.9267/2023 (Shantibai Kushwaha Vs. State of M.P. and others) whereby Dy.
Collector and Incharge District Programme Officer has directed to add 10
marks for BPL category in favour of private respondent No.4- Shanti
Kushwaha and directed to issue order of appointment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per order Annexure-
P/8 issued in the name of and by the orders of Governor, Women and Child
Development Department, it is clarified that benefit of 10 marks for BPL
category will be granted only when name of person/family is available in the
BPL list prior to the date of issuance of advertisement. Thus, it is submitted
that since private respondent No.4 had applied for grant of BPL certificate after
few days inasmuch as advertisement was issued on 16/03/2021, last date to fill
application was 31/03/2021 and admittedly private respondent was not having a
BPL card issued prior to 16/03/2021, therefore, BPL card issued in her favour
subsequently could not have been taken into consideration.
3. Shri D.C. Mallik, learned counsel for respondent No.4, draws attention
of this Court to Annexure-P/12 which is a clarification issued by the Joint
Director, Integrated Child Development Service, Madhya Pradesh on 31/082017
and submits that certificate which was enclosed along with the application form
was required to be taken into consideration and that has been rightly taken into
consideration by the authority inasmuch as private respondent had enclosed the
BPL card obtained by her prior to last date of filing of the application and, thus,
grant of ten marks in her favour is fully justified.
4. Shri D.C. Mallik, learned counsel, further submits that there are
ambiguities in the valuation of mark sheet of petitioner as was obtained from
Himalayan University. It is also submitted that in the 12th class mark sheet her
name is shown as Bavita and not Savita, therefore, she could not have been
given admission in graduation course which is based on 12th class mark sheet
showing her to be Savita. In view of such submissions, it is submitted that
petitioner's 12 class mark sheet or graduation mark sheet should not have been
taken into consideration and if those marks are deducted, then private
respondent, being more meritorious will be eligible for appointment as has been
granted by the Dy. Collector-cum-District Programme Officer.
5. Shri D.C. Mallik, learned counsel for respondent No.4, insists on relying
on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Singh and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1394 passed in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No.12441 of 2022, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in
para-17 has held as under :
"17. The Court, vide its judgment in State of Bihar
Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1262,
also took the view that as per the settled proposition of
law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the
conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement
before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless
extended by the recruiting authority."
6. Similarly, reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Division
Bench decision of this High Court in Writ Appeal No.582/2022 (Sirajuddin
and another Vs. Northern Coalfields Limited and others) decided on 29th
July, 2022 wherein Hon'ble Division Bench has held as under :
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra reported in (2017) 11
SCC 521 has held that the testimonials pertaining to
eligibility criteria for grant of additional benefit filed after
cut off date cannot be taken into consideration. To the
aforesaid extent, the learned Writ Court has rightly
rejected the contentions of the writ petitioners."
7. Placing reliance on these judgments, it is submitted that since private
respondent had already filed necessary documents showing her to be belonging
to BPL category prior to cut off date, they should have been taken into
consideration and could not have been overlooked.
8. When these judgments are taken into consideration, then it is evident that
none of them answers the issue as is evident from Annexure-P/8. Annexure-
P/8 specifically provides that BPL certificate should be one obtained prior to
issuance of the advertisement, then merely filing a document along with
application form makes it eligible for consideration in violation of the
provisions contained in Annexure-P/8 which is of a prior date to the date of
advertisement and which neither petitioner nor private respondent had
challenged before any authority and it has stood the test of the time. Correction
in 12th class mark sheet after the cut off date has no ramification on the merits
inasmuch as in the 8th class and 10th class mark sheet name of petitioner is
shown as 'Savita Bramhan' and if there was any typographical error replacing
word 'S' with alphabet 'B", then that will not cause any prejudice to petitioner
due to subsequent correction in the hands of the competent authority.
9. Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate, supports the impugned
order.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate, has produced the original
record of selection. In the original record, there is a communication made by
Himalayan University established by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh &
Recognized as per Section 2(f) of UGC Act, 1956 wherein the genuineness of
the graduation mark sheet of the petitioner has been certified. As far as 12th
class mark sheet is concerned, this Court has perused the record and it bears
endorsement of the competent authority correcting such mark sheet. More
over, there is a communication available from the Principal of Swami
Pranvanand Sanskrit Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bamhori (Baran) Distt.
Tikamgarh, which reveals that petitioner obtained correction of the mark sheet
from the concerned Maharshi Patanjali Sanskrit Sansthanam, Bhopalam on the
basis of her 8th and 10th class mark sheets. Therefore, these two grounds in
regard to 12th class mark sheet and graduation mark sheet are not made out.
11. The only issue which needs adjudication is in regard to interpretation of
Annexure-P/8 read with Annexure-P/12.
12. As noted above, Annexure-P/8 categorically read as under :
"mDr fZLFkfr dks nf"Vxr j[krs gq, xjhch js[kk ds uhps jgus okys
ifjokj dh efgyk vkosfndk dks ch0ih0,y0 ds 10 vadks dk ykHk mlh
fLFkfr esa fn;k tkos tcfd mldk@ ifjokj dk uke foKfIr tkjh gksus
dh frfFk ds iwoZ ls fujUrj lwph esa fon;eku gks A
mDr funsZ'k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksxk A"
Annexure-P/12 reads as under :
''संचालनालय एक कृत बाल िवकास सेवा म य देश ''िवजयाराजे वा स य भवन'' 28-ए अरेरा िह स, भोपाल
(म0 0) फोन: 2550909, फै स: 2550912, ई[email protected] - 462 011, Website:
www.mpwcdmis.org
कमांक/ एबािवसे/आईसीडीएस / 2017/1316 भोपाल, िदनांक 31-08-2017
ित,
जला काय म अ धकारी,
एक कृत बाल िवकास सेवा,
जला सागर ( म० ०)
िवषयः आं गनवाड़ी कायकता / सहाियका एवं उपकायकता क िनयुि म द तावेज वीकार िकये जाने के
स ब ध म मागदशन बाबत ।
संदभ: आपका ई-मेल प मांक 2391/आईसीडीएस/मबािव/2017-18, िदनांक 17-08-2017.
कृपया स दिभत प का अवलोकन करने का क करे। आं गनवाड़ी कायकता / सहाियका एवं उप
कायकता क िनयुि हेत ु जला तरीय दावा / आप िनराकरण सिमित ारा म० ० शासन, मिहला एवं
बाल िवकास िवभाग के प कमाकं 1114/1489/2017 / 50-2, िदनांक 15-05-2017 म िदये गये िनदश
अनुसार यिद आवेिदका आवेदन जमा करने क अंितम ित थ तक वह द तावेज जैसे जाित माण प , अंकसूची
एवं गरीबी रेखा राशन काड या सूची आवेदन के साथ जमा नह कर पाती है। जो िव ि जारी होने के पूव तैयार
िकया गया हो तो उस द तावेज को दावा / आप म तुत िकये जाने पर सिमित ारा मा य कर अंक क
गणना क जा सकेगी अथवा नह के स ब ध म मागदशन चाहा गया है ।
उ स ब ध म प िकया जाता है िक आवेदन प के साथ जो द तावेज जमा िकये गये है, उसी
अनुसार अंक क गणना कर चयन सूची जारी क जावे । दावा आप के समय नवीन द तावेज लया जाना
उिचत नह है। आवेदन तुत करते समय तुत िकये गये द तावेज ही मा य िकये जाए । दावा आप के
समय पूव मं◌ो आवेदन के समय तुत िकये गये द तावेज के Support म द तावेज तुत िकये जा सकते है
।
कृपया तदनुसार कायवाही क जाना सुिनि त करे ।
(आयु ारा अनुमोिदत)
(आर.पी. संह)
संयु संचालक,
एक कृत बाल िवकास सेवा, म० ०.''
13. Thus, it is evident that Annexure-P/8 dated 15/05/2017 issued in the
name and by the order of the Governor being issued in exercise of the executive
powers of the State clearly provides that 10 marks for BPL category will be
given to only those candidates whose own name/name of the family was
mentioned in the BPL list prior to the date of issuance of the advertisment.
Thereafter Annexure-P/12 dated 31/08/2017 is on a different subject namely a
direction was sought as to acceptance of documents in the matter of Aaganwadi
Karyakarta/Sahayaka and Up-Karyakarta. In this context, it has been clarified
that those documents which are produced along with the application are to be
taken into consideration and to support those documents supplementary
documents can be given at the time of scrutiny/verification.
14. When tested in this light, then it is evident that order Annexure-P/12 on
which Shri D.C. Mallik, learned counsel for respondent No.4, is placing heavy
reliance, has not superseded Annexure-P/8. Secondly, it is in a different
context. Thirdly, order Annexure-P/8 being issued in the name of and by the
orders of the Governor cannot be superseded by the order of Joint Director as
approved by the Commissioner which is neither in the name of the Governor
nor by the orders of the Governor, therefore, it is apparent that there are two
different aspects which have been dealt by Annexure-P/8 and P/12
respectively.
15. Annexure-P/8 whereas categorically provides that BPL certificate
should be on the basis of the name of the person or his/her family in the BPL
list prior to the date of the advertisement. Admittedly, in the present case,
private respondent had applied for grant of BPL card on 26/02/2021 and was
approved on 14/3/2021, but, was admittedly issued on 24/03/2021. Thus, it is
evident that in terms of Annexure-P/8, certificate was issued after issuance of
advertisement and there is no material to show that in the survey conducted
prior to issuance of advertisement, name of private respondent or her family
was included in the list.
16. Thus, merely enclosing the certificate admittedly issued after the date of
advertisement will not help the private respondent No.4. In view of such facts,
when Annexure-P/8 is properly interpreted, private respondent is not entitled to
any benefit, therefore, petition deserves to be allowed.
17. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure-P/1 is
hereby quashed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
