[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pushpa Thakre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 November, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61969
1 WP-29444-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 28th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 29444 of 2025
PUSHPA THAKRE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Lala - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Lalit Joglekar - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Sudeep Singh Saini - Advocate for the respondent No.5.
ORDER
This is a petition by the petitioner while praying for the following
reliefs:
"7.1 To issue writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing of the impugned order dt. 17.04.25 (Ann. P/3)
so far as it relates to petitioner to meet the ends of
justice.
7.2 To issue writ in the nature of mandamus for
restraining the authorities from any action pursuant to
the impugned orders."
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner, as well as
private respondent No.5, had submitted their candidature for appointment to
the post of Aganwadi Karyakarta. After the submission of the application
form, the present petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 1, having scored 63.22
marks, and the private respondent No. 5 was placed at Sr. No. 2, having
scored 49.3 Marks. The petitioner's merit was objected to by the private
respondent No.5, and the said objection was entertained, and thereafter, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61969
2 WP-29444-2025
private respondent No.5 was given appointment as Aganwadi Karyakarta.
The appointment order in respect of private respondent No. 5 was challenged
by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector. The Collector vide
order dated 23.09.2024 allowed the appeal. However, the order passed by the
Collector was assailed by the private respondent No.5 before the
Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. The Commissioner, while
entertaining the second appeal, set aside the order passed by the Collector.
Hence, this petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that this is a case where the
Collector passed a well reasoned order since Collector observed in his order
that the the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.1 as he had cored 63.22 marks
whereas private respondent No.5 had scored 49.3 marks, therefore, even if 10
marks towards BPL category awarded to the petitioner initially are reduced,
still the petitioner herein would remain at top in the merit list as after
deduction of 10 marks, the total marks of the petitioner would be 53.22. This
aspect of the matter has not been considered, and the Commissioner has
passed the order dated 17.04.2025 in a purely mechanical manner. It is
further contended that, undisputedly, the petitioner is more meritorious,
which is evident from the order of the Collector. Thus, she deserves to be
appointed as an Aganwadi Karyakarta. It is the merit that is the paramount
consideration required to be made while considering the candidature. In
support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the decision of this Court passed in W.P. No.10353/2011 (Smt. Sarika Dole
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) vide order dated 04.12.2024 .
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61969
3 WP-29444-2025
4. Counsel for the private respondent No. 5 contended that this petition
is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The conduct of the petitioner
herein was taken note of by the Commissioner. The Commissioner observed
in the impugned order that the petitioner had taken recourse to manipulation;
thus, she was not entitled to any relief as the entire process as regard
petitioner stood vitiated. It is contended by the counsel that the
Commissioner, while passing the order, has referred to the order dated
26.09.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No.5403/2023 (Kumari Sandhya
Maravi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) , and the said order makes it
abundantly clear that the candidate who was guilty of producing concocted
and manipulated documents was confronted with an order of imposition of
cost as well. It is also contended by the counsel that the fraud makes the
entire process to be vitiated and in support of his contention, counsel for the
respondent No.5 has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the
case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil
Kanwariya reported in (2021) 10 SCC 136 and also the order passed by this
Court in the case of Kumari Sandhya Maravi (supra) .
5. Counsel for the State submitted that no error has been committed by
the Commissioner in passing the impugned order. The counsel has also
reiterated the contentions so advanced by counsel for the respondent No.5.
6. No other point is pressed or argued by counsel for the parties.
7. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. A perusal of the record reflects that after submission of candidature,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61969
4 WP-29444-2025
a merit list was prepared. The present petition was placed at Sr. No.1 in the
merit list and having scored 63.22 marks. The 10 marks to the petitioner for
being on the BPL list were granted. The husband of the petitioner was in
government employment. The name of the husband of the petitioner is
Leeladhar Thakre. However, the petitioner got her name entered in the BPL
card of her jaith (brother-in-law) Gangadhar Thakre, which is prima facie
evident from perusal of the Ration Card contained in Annexure R/2. The
petitioner, if she was married and had claimed that she was a member of the
BPL category, was expected to explain the aforesaid entry in the Samgra
Portal, which did not include the name of the husband of the present
petitioner. The order passed by the Commissioner also reflects that an order
of appointment in respect of the husband of the petitioner was issued by
Nagar Parishad Damua, District Chhindwara vide order dated 12.11.2012,
contained in Annexure R/5 and as per the said appointment order, the
petitioner's husband was working as "Safai Sanrakshak" and was drawing
pay scale of Rs.4400-7440 with Grade Pay 1300. Since the husband of the
present petitioner was undisputedly in government employment, the present
petitioner was not entitled to any benefit under the BPL category. The
Commissioner also took into consideration the Parivar Patra, which was
submitted by the present petitioner along with her application form, and also
took note of the manipulation. The Commissioner also took note of a report
which was requisitioned from the office of Nagar Parishad Barkuhi, Tehsil
Parasia and in the said report it was mentioned that the present petitioner is
wife of Leeladhar Thakre and his resident is Barkuhi, Ward No.11. It was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61969
5 WP-29444-2025
also appreciated by the Commissioner that in the Ration Card the name of
the husband of the petitioner was struck out and name of the petitioner was
added with the name of her brother-in-law whose name was therein in the
survey list of 2006 at Sr. No.1010, Ward No.11. The present petitioner was
residing with her husband and therefore, the Commissioner concluded that
the petitioner was not entitled for appointment as the petitioner had taken
recourse to manipulation and suppression and accordingly, has passed the
order dated 17.04.2025.
9. This Court in the case of Kumari Sandhya Maravi (supra) has
observed in paragraph as under:
"17. Although, counsel for respondent No. 3 tried to
justify the mentioning of name of respondent No. 3 and
her husband in the Parivar Patra of her mother-in-law
Jayanti Bai by submitting that the name of respondent
No. 3 must have been added after her marriage but
fairly conceded that neither any order has been placed
on record for including the name of respondent No. 3
nor there is any counter signature in front of the name
of her husband and respondent No. 3. It is also not
known as to when the name of respondent No. 3 was
recorded in the Parivar Patra of her mother Jayanti Bai.
Thus, in absence of any material to show that the name
of respondent No. 3 and her husband was added after
her marriage, it is held that the BPL Card relied upon by
the respondent No. 3 is suspicious and appears to be
manipulated document.
18. Accordingly, the Collector did not commit any
mistake by discarding the BPL Card relied upon by
respondent No. 3. The Additional Commissioner,
Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur while setting aside the order
passed by Collector has lost site of the above mentioned
infirmities in the Parivar Patra of mother-in-law of
respondent No. 3.
19. Since, this Court has formed a prima facie opinion
that the Parivar Patra filed by respondent No. 3 appears
to be a manipulated and concocted document, therefore,
an opportunity was given to the counsel for the
respondent No. 3 as to why a direction to lodge an FIR
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61969
6 WP-29444-2025
may not be issued against respondent No. 3 for
concocting and manipulating the official documents. It
was submitted by counsel for respondent No. 3 that
since respondent No. 3 is a lady, therefore, instead of
directing for her prosecution, petition may be allowed
by imposing reasonable cost.
20. Considered the submission made by counsel for
respondent No. 3.
21. By taking a sympathetic view merely on the ground
that respondent No. 3 is a lady aged about 27 years, this
Court is restraining itself from directing for prosecution
of respondent No. 3.
22. In light of above mentioned discussion, the order
dated 15.02.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner,
Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur in Case No. 448/Appeal/19-
20 is hereby set aside and order dated 31.08.2019
passed by Collector Dindori in Case No. 73(B-
121)/2017-18 is hereby restored.
23. It appears that there was no stay on the execution of
order dated 15.02.2023 passed by Additional
Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur, therefore, it
appears that respondent No. 3 must have been given the
appointment order in light of the impugned order.
Accordingly, it is directed that respondent No. 3 shall
immediately stop working as Anganwadi Worker,
Anganwadi Centre, Samnapur, District Dindori and
petitioner shall be allowed to work on the said post.
24. Since, the respondent No. 3 had concocted and
manipulated the official record, therefore, this petition
is allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by
respondent No. 3 within a period of one month from
today before the Registry of this Court failing which the
Registrar General shall not only initiate proceedings for
recovery of cost but shall also register a case for
Contempt of Court."
10. The Apex Court in the case of Meghmala & others vs. G.
Narasimha Reddy & others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 has held as under:
"It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant
gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or
playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order
cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. Fraud and
justice never dwell together (fraus et. Jus nunquam
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61969
7 WP-29444-2025
cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never
lost its temper over all the secenturies. The ration laid
down by the Supreme Court in various cases is that
dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and
benefit to the persons who played fraud or made
misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court
should not perpetuate the fraud."
11. The Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar vs. State of
Uttaranchal and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 has held as under:
"It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant
gets an order by misrepresenting the facts or by playing
fraud upon the competent authority, such an order
cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. "Fraud avoids
all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal"
12. The Apex Court in the case of District Primary School Council,
West Bengal vs. Mritunjoy Das and others reported in (2011) 15 SCC 111
has held as under:
"9. On going through the records placed before us, what
we find is that the contesting respondents herein inflated
their marks in order to obtain admission in the Primary
Teacher's Training Institute. Had the marks not been
inflated in the aforesaid manner, the contesting
respondents would not have got the admission in that
particular Institute as it is disclosed from the records.
Therefore, the admission sought for was through an
illegal means which is to be deprecated. The conduct of
the contesting respondents being such, we cannot find
fault with the course of action taken by the appellant
herein. It is not that the contesting respondents were not
given any opportunity of hearing. They were given a
show-cause notice and were also given an opportunity
of hearing which opportunity they did not accept
although they submitted a reply to the show-cause
notice. There is, therefore, no violation of the principles
of natural justice in the present case. If a particular act is
fraudulent, any consequential order to such fraudulent
act or conduct is non est and void ab initio and,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61969
8 WP-29444-2025
therefore, we cannot find any fault with the action of the
appellant in dismissing the service of the contesting
respondents. In this context we refer to the decision of
this Court in Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High
School and Intermediate Education [(2003) 8 SCC 311]
for the proposition that no person should be allowed to
keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud."
13. If the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is examined in
view of the judgments of the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, it would reveal
that the Commissioner did not commit any error while passing the impugned
order as the present petitioner undisputedly knowingly fully well that her
husband was in government employment submitted documents alongwith the
application from while projecting herself to be a member of BPL category.
Such a course depicts a fraudulent act of the present petitioner. The petitioner
did not participate in the process with the clean hands. Her act cannot be
allowed to go unnoticed. Merely scoring higher marks with deduction of
BPL marks does not wipe out petitioner's venture to produce manipulated
documents. Equity is not a one way street, hence, the conduct of the
petitioner does not entitle her to get any such relief in equity.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition stands
dismissed and the order dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by the
Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur is hereby affirmed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
