Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shiv Kumari Panthi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12049
1 WP-12335-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12335 of 2022
SMT. SHIV KUMARI PANTHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Naval Kishore Gupta - GA for the State.
Mr. Krishna Kartikey Sharma - Advocate for the caveator.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated
18.08.2021 passed by Additional Collector, Vidisha, whereby the appeal
filed by respondent no.7 challenging the appointment of the petitioner was
allowed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.05.2022
passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, whereby her
appeal filed against the order of Collector is dismissed.
2 . The facts necessary for decision of the case are that the petitioner
as well as respondent no.7 were the candidates for selection of Anganwadi
Sahayika for Tribhuwanpur, Aganwadi Center. After selection, the petitioner
was appointed on the said post vide order dated 26.02.2021. She accordingly
joined on the post.
3 . The respondent no.7, being aggrieved by her non-selection on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12049
2 WP-12335-2022
post, filed an appeal before the Collector, District Vidisha, inter alia on the
ground that, even though she had submitted the BPL certificate along with
the application, she has been illegally denied 10 marks allocated for BPL
category candidates. The Additional Collector after hearing all the concerned
parties, allowed the appeal and held that the BPL certificate was duly filed
by respondent no.7 along with her application, though it was not certified. It
was also found that the entire family of respondent no.7 belong to BPL since
earlier point of time. He accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the
order of appointment of petitioner and directed for appointment of
respondent no.7.
4 . The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of Additional
Collector, filed a second appeal before the Commissioner, Bhopal Division,
Bhopal which has also suffered dismissal vide impugned order dated
19.05.2022. The Additional Commissioner has affirmed the finding recorded
by the Additional Collector. That is how the petitioner is before this Court
against the order passed by Additional Collector as also by the Additional
Commissioner.
5 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that BPL
certificate filed by respondent no.7 along with her application was not
certified and the same was certified only on 03.01.2021 i.e. after the last date
for submission of the application which was 25.10.2020. He submitted that
respondent no.7 thus was not having the requisite qualification for obtaining
10 marks towards BPL category and therefore, subsequent verification of her
certificate would not entitle her to get 10 marks. The learned counsel,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12049
3 WP-12335-2022
therefore, submitted that Additional Collector as also Additional
Commissioner erred in setting aside the petitioner's appointment on the post
of Anganwadi Sahayika.
6 . The learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 6 supported the
impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7 . The counsel for respondent no.7 submitted that admittedly, the
respondent no.7 was having a BPL certificate on the date of submission of
the application. She was denied appointment only on the ground that the
certificate was not verified. The said certificate was subsequently verified
also, which is evident from the document filed as Annexure R-7/1 along with
the reply. He also submitted that the finding recorded by both the authorities
that the family of respondent no.7 belong to BPL category since before is
also justified and the petitioner has failed to show that such a finding
recorded by both the authorities is perverse. He thus prays for dismissal of
the writ petition.
8. Considered the arguments of the parties and perused the record.
9 . It is not in dispute between the parties that petitioner secured 64.8
marks including 10 marks allotted for BPL category while respondent no.7
secured 60 marks which did not include 10 marks of BPL category. After
allotting 10 marks for BPL category, she secured 70 marks, which is more
than petitioner's marks. Thus, the only issue involved in this case is as to
whether the respondent no.7 is entitled to get 10 marks for her BPL
certificate?
10. The Additional Collector as also Additional Commissioner have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12049
4 WP-12335-2022
recorded a finding of the fact that family of respondent no.7 belong to BPL
category, since before the last date for submission of the application. The
Additional Collector has got the certificate verified again wherein it was
found that the family of respondent no.7 was already included in BPL
category even before 22.12.2020. Therefore, merely because BPL certificate
of respondent no.7 was not certified on the date of submission of application
would not render her ineligible for getting 10 marks if it is otherwise found
that she belong to BPL category. The finding recorded by Additional
Collector has been affirmed by Additional Commissioner. There is no
ground for interfering with the factual finding recorded by both the
authorities. It is therefore, held that the Additional Collector as also
Additional Commissioner have justified in upholding the appointment of
respondent no.7 on the post of Anganwadi Sahayika.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Aarti Parihar Vs. Sunita & others,
reported in 2019(3) MPLJ 611 in support of his submissions. On going
through the said judgment it is found that the facts of the case are different
inasmuch as in the case of Arti Parihar (supra), the petitioner was not having
the caste certificate on the last date for submission of the application and,
therefore, she was not held entitled for appointment. However, in the instant
case, the BPL certificate was submitted by respondent no.7 along with her
application. Further, finding has been recorded by both the authorities that
family of respondent no.7 belongs to BPL category, therefore, it is not a
case, where BPL certificate was not available with the respondent no.7. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12049
5 WP-12335-2022
judgment in the case of Arti Parihar (supra) is therefore, of no help to the
petitioner.
12. In view of the discussion made above, orders passed by the
Additional Collector as well as Additional Commissioner cannot be said to
be illegal and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly,
this instant petition is hereby dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
