Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Pushpa Kulshrestha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 October, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17636
1 WP-4917-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 3 rd OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 4917 of 2007
SMT. PUSHPA KULSHRESTHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.S.Raghuwanshi - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K.Agrawal - GA for the respondents/State.
Shri Hrishikesh Dutta Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent [R-4].
ORDER
With the consent of both parties, the matter is finally heard at the motion
stage.
The Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226&227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) That, the appointment and selection of the respondent no.4 on the
post of Anganwadi Worker in Ward No.12 of Nagar Panchayat Jaura of
District Morena may kindly be directed to be set-aside and in her place
the petitioner may kindly be appointed on the post of Anganwadi
Worker as she was placed at Sr.No.1 in the merit list prepared by the
respondents;
(ii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded".
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted
an application for appointment as an Anganwadi Worker in Urban and Rural
Areas. She being at Sr.No.1 in the merit list, was recommended for appointment in
Ward No.12 of Nagar Panchayat, Jaura Distt. Morena. Respondent No.4 submitted
an application for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker in Ward No.11.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17636
2 WP-4917-2007
She did not file any application for appointment on the said post in Ward No.12
and she is not a resident of Ward No.12 but later on, she filed an application that
her application should be shifted and adjusted to Ward No.12. The petitioner filed
an objection but District Selection committee has appointed respondent No.4.on
the post of Anganwadi Worker in Ward No.12. Respondent No.3 acted beyond his
jurisdiction, therefore, action of the respondent No.3 is illegal and contrary to law.
Respondent No.4 was already working as an Anganwadi Worker in the village
Devgarh Bindwa and she has not submitted his resignation but she was finally
selected as an Anganwadi Worker in Ward No.12. Being aggrieved by the same,
the present petition has been filed. In support of the contentions, learned counsel
for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others reported
in (2007) 4 SCC 54 and by Division Bench the High Court of M.P. in Neelam
Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015(1) MPLJ 297.
Per contra, respondents No.1 to 3 oppose the prayer and pray for rejection of
this petition stating that respondent No.4 after the death of her husband came to
Morena and submitted an application for considering her application for Ward
No.12, therefore, she has been selected in accordance with law. The husband of the
petitioner is a practicing lawyer and she does not fall within the category of BPL
persons. The petitioner is having alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the
Collector, which has not been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is not
maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
Respondent No.4 opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of this writ
petition submitting reply that the respondent was living in Ward No.12 in her
Maternal Grandmother's house. She was already working as an Anganwadi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17636
3 WP-4917-2007
Worker in a different village and after the death of her husband, she filed an
application for appointment in Ward No.12. The petitioner has the alternative and
efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Collector, within Ten days from
the date of final publication i.e. 03.09.2007 of appointment list but the petitioner
did not avail the aforesaid liberty within the aforesaid time, therefore, present
petition deserves to be set aside.
Both the parties are heard and perused the entire record appended with this
petition by both the parties and the record of appointment filed by the respondents.
From a perusal of the record, it appears that on 22.08.2007, the respondent
No.4 filed an application for appointing her to the post of Anganwadi Worker.
Although respondent No.4 initially filed her application for appointment in Ward
No.11 but later on, she filed an application for considering his application for
Ward No.12 on 07.09.2007. The initial application was filed by her on 22.08.2007
(Vide annexure R/4-3). As per Annexure R/4-2, the last date of filing the
application was 22.08.2007, therefore, respondent No.4 filed his application for
appointment within time.
Respondent No.4 had minimum qualifications and fulfilled the eligibility
criteria for the appointment satisfying the requirement of being a resident of the
village where the appointment is to be made, and she was working on the said
post in a different village, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.4 was
not having required qualification for appointment on the aforesaid post. So far as
the criteria of local residence of respondent No.4 and his family is concerned, a
family ration card of Kokila Bai Sharma has been filed wherein, the name of
respondent No.4 Suman Bai has been mentioned. The name of respondent No.4
Suman Bai is also found in the Voters List of the concerned Ward as per Annexure
R/4-5, therefore, it is also proved that respondent No.4 is a resident of ward No.12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17636
4 WP-4917-2007
of Nagar Panchayat, Jaura, and duly fulfills the criteria of being local resident.
Apart from the above, as per circular dated 10.07.2007 issued by Mahila
Avam Bal Vikas Vibhag, Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner has an alternative and
efficacious remedy for filing an appeal before the Collector within 10 days from
the date of final publication i.e. 03.09.2007 but the petitioner did not avail
aforesaid remedy within the stipulated period. Therefore, in view of the
availability of alternative and efficacious remedies to the petitioner, this petition is
not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the aforesaid, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the selection of respondent No.4 for the
post of Anganwadi Worker in Ward No.12 is in accordance with law.
This petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
