Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailja Tiwari vs The State Of M.P. Through Its on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30275
1 WP-19317-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 8 th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 19317 of 2025
SHAILJA TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ITS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raja Bhaiya Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
respondent/caveator.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annex.P/5,
whereby the appeal of the respondent No.6 against the order Annex.P/4 has
been allowed by the Additional collector and by setting aside the order of the
Additional Collector, the respondent No.6 has been held entitled to be
appointed on the post of Aganwadi Assistant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has criticized the order Annex.P/5
on the ground that the applications were invited for the Aganwadi Centre in
question in the year 2022 and thereafter the petitioner was appointed vide
order dated 12/03/2024. On appeal being filed by the respondent No.6, the
said appeal was rejected by the Additional Collector. However, now the
Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal and has held that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30275
2 WP-19317-2025
respondent No.6 is entitled to be appointed as Aganwadi worker which
results in loss of employment for the petitioner. It is contended that the
Commissioner has erroneously allowed the second appeal filed by the
respondent No.6 and the order of the Collector was well reasoned order.
3. It is argued that the respondent No.6 ceased to be resident of the
village in question upon being married to one Deepak Jharia, resident of
village Bhamki, Tahsil Shahpura, District Jabalpur and therefore, ceased to
remain resident of village Kakrehata, Tahsil Patan, District Jabalpur.
4. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.6 has vehemently opposed the
petition on the ground that the applications were invited and last date of
submission of applications was 30/03/2022 whereas the marriage of
respondent No.6 took place on 18/05/2022. It is argued that despite marriage,
the respondent No.6 is residing in her maternal village and is not residing at
matrimonial village. Even otherwise, the distance between the two places is
only 20 kms. It is argued that there is no bar that an Aganwadi Assistant or
worker once having been appointed on the ground of local resident would
lose appointment upon being married to another place, unless she is unable
to carry out her duties in the village of posting. Therefore, the petition is
utterly misconceived and the Additional Commissioner has done complete
justice between the parties.
5. Heard.
6. From the facts of the case, the sole dispute that arises for
determination is whether the Additional Commissioner has erred in ordering
that the candidature of respondent No.6 was valid despite her marriage to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30275
3 WP-19317-2025
another village on 18/05/2022.
7. Undisputedly, the last date of submission of application was
30/03/2022 and the marriage of respondent No.6 took place on 18/05/2022.
It is settled in law that the last date of submission of applications is the
reference date for assessing the relative qualification of candidates, unless
otherwise prescribed in the advertisement or rules.
8. In the present case, the marriage of respondent No.6 took place
about two months after submission of application forms. The later marriage
of respondent No.6 would have disentitled her only in the event there was
some stipulation in the policy that upon marriage to another place, the
Aganwadi Worker or Assistant would lose her employment. No doubt the
authorities are always at liberty to take appropriate action if the Aganwadi
Assistant or Worker does not attend the Centre or is negligent about her
duties. However, once subsequent marriage is not a disqualification to
continue to hold the post after appointment therefore, subsequent marriage of
respondent No.6 in another village cannot be held as disqualification against
her. The marriage took place after last date of submission of application and
even otherwise, the marriage was in a nearby village stated to be around 20
kms away in the same district.
9. A Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1158/2018 has
considered the issue that whether subsequent cancellation of BPL card would
disentitle candidate, if the BPL card was valid on the last date of submission
of application forms. It has been categorically held that the candidate must
possess requisite qualification on the last date fixed for purpose of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30275
4 WP-19317-2025
submitting the application forms. The Division Bench held as under:
15. A candidate must possess requisite qualifications on the last
date fixed for the purpose of submitting application forms. At this
juncture, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in the case of Dr. M.V. Nair vs. Union of India and other,
(1993) 2 SCC 429 ruled thus:
"9. .......It is well settled that suitability and eligibility of a
candidate have to be considered with reference to the last date for
receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification
calling for applications itself specifies such a date."
[Emphasis supplied]
16. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
and others (2013) 11 SCC 58 it is held that the settled legal
proposition is that the selection process commences on the date
when the applications are invited and any person eligible on the
last date of submission of the application secures the right to be
considered against the said vacancy, provided that he/she fulfills
the requisite qualifications.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner made an argument
in desperation that there was preference for widows and the petitioner is a
widow. This argument also cannot be accepted for the simple reason that on
the last date of submission of application form, the petitioner was not a
widow and the unfortunate event of her widowhood took place sometime
later i.e. on 26/03/2023, which is almost one year after the last date of
submission of application forms which was 30/03/2022.
11. Therefore, finding no ground to interfere in the well reasoned
order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the petition stands dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
