With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is finally heard.
2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order
dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner in Case
No.613/Appeal/2022-23 reversing the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by
the Collector in an appeal No.0251/Appeal/2021-22.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under:-
3.1 It is a case in respect of appointment of Anganwadi Worker
for the Centre at Village Tarpoh, Tehsil Shahgarh, District Sagar.
Pursuant to an advertisement, applications were invited. The petitioner
and respondent No.5 had also applied and their candidatures were
considered and a select list was prepared and published in which the
petitioner was placed at serial No.1, who scored highest marks.
Although, an objection was raised by respondent No.5 before the
selection committee and thereafter she filed an appeal before the
Collector challenging the petitioner's appointment claiming that
respondent No.5 was meritorious, but she was not granted adequate
marks for holding BPL card and for possessing additional qualification
of graduation. The Collector dismissed the appeal vide order dated
17.08.2022 on two counts; firstly, that as far as marks for holding BPL
card are concerned, an enquiry was conducted in respect of the
correctness of BPL card, in which, it was found that although the names
of respondent No.5 and her husband were there, but it was found that in
the portal, their family was not shown as BPL family and therefore no
such marks could have been given to respondent No.5. Secondly, with
regard to the marks given for possessing additional qualification of
graduation, since it was not shown in the application of respondent
No.5, therefore, subsequently if any document with regard to graduation
was submitted, the marks could not have been granted and as such the
Collector dismissed the appeal.
3.2. Aggrieved with the order of the Collector, respondent No.5
preferred a second appeal and in the impugned order, the Commissioner
has observed that in the BPL card, the names of father-in-law and
husband of respondent No.5 are already recorded, therefore, taking
strength from a circular dated 10.07.2007, which provides that if the
name of the husband of the candidate is shown in the BPL card, marks
can be allotted to the candidate, as such, the Commissioner has found
that there was no illegality in granting 10 marks to respondent No.5.
The Commissioner has also taken note of the fact that respondent No.5
completed her graduation in the year 2018 and the District Selection
Committee did not grant 10 marks for having additional qualification
because the mark-sheet was not produced and even in the application,
the said fact was not disclosed. As per the Commissioner, 10 marks
ought to have been granted because the said mark-sheet was very much
before the appellate authority i.e. the Collector and the Collector should
have taken note of the same. As such, it was found that the appointment
of respondent No.5 should have been made on the basis of her marks
and thus the appeal was allowed and the order of the Collector was set
aside.
4. Shri Golhani, learned counsel for the petitioner is
challenging the impugned order of Commissioner by placing reliance
upon the documents filed by him along with an application for taking
documents on record.
5. However, I am not inclined to take note of those documents
at this stage for the reason that these documents were not submitted
before the Commissioner and no statement on affidavit in this regard has
been made in the petition that despite filing those documents before the
Commissioner, the same were not taken note of. In such a situation,
additional documents cannot be taken note of by this Court while
exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India.
6. Even after considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, I am also of the opinion that the paramount
consideration is the 'merit' for selection of Anganwadi Worker and the
circular dated 10.07.2007 is very specific in that regard. Respondent
No.5 is undoubtedly a graduate lady and her certificate was not
submitted before the selection committee because it was not disclosed,
but it is not in dispute that in 2018 she completed graduation and that
mark-sheet was very much before the Collector. Even considering the
total marks allotted to respondent No.5, if these 10 marks are not
included, then even she is meritorious than the petitioner. As such, the
Commissioner has not committed any wrong while considering the
comparative merits of the petitioner and respondent No.5 and the
impugned order does not call for any interference.
7. The order dated 08.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.16504/2018
(Smt. Gaytri v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others), relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not help the petitioner
because in my opinion too, the appellate authority after considering the
BPL card has rightly found that respondent No.5 was entitled to get the
marks for holding the BPL card as the names of her husband and father-
in-law were imprinted. In Smt. Gaytri (supra) there was a report of
Tehsildar with regard to the fact that BPL card was wrongly issued in
favour of the aspirant, however, in the present case, situation is
otherwise. As per the order of the Commissioner, it is pointed out that
the names of husband and father-in-law of respondent No.5 were
mentioned in the BPL card and there was no report with regard to its
illegality. Furthermore, in the case of Shalini Singh v. State of M.P.
2021 SCC OnLine MP 3090, relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, wherein it is observed that if the documents are not before the
selection committee, marks could not have been awarded. Although, this
judgment is not applicable in the case at hand. Even otherwise, if the
marks of having graduation are not awarded to respondent No.5, even
then she is meritorious than the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, I find that the impugned order is
infallible and the petition being misconceived, is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
sudesh
SUDESH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
KUMAR
2.5.4.20=1d5e479f08e68eda8f9271db
be2c4bc3916264aec736f7c5f5885257f
5eeaeb7, postalCode=482001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=7D462390C18350EF7C
SHUKLA
40811B12AB45D82AF1259878762BAC
356DCFA877F02654, cn=SUDESH
KUMAR SHUKLA
Date: 2025.04.16 16:32:15 +05'30'
