Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 224 (MP)

Shashi Bai v. State Of M. P.

2011-02-15

RAJENDRA MENON

body2011
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) CHALLENGING the order dated 29-6-2010 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16-6-2010 passed by the Collector, Katni in the matter of appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta to the centre in question, petitioner has filed this writ petition. ( 2. ) PETITIONER claims to be a permanent resident of Madaiyantola post Hardwar Tahsil Rithi, Distt. Katni. It is the case of the petitioner that Gram Panchayat Deorikala issued an advertisement for appointment of Dy. Anganwadi Karyakarta for the centre situated in Madaiyantola. In pursuance to the advertisement, petitioner applied for the post and was appointed as Dy. Anganwadi Karyakarta. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 21-12-2009, respondent No. 4 appointed the petitioner as Dy. Anganwadi Karyakarta for the Gram Panchayat Deorikala at Anganwadi centre Madaiyantola. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed and joined the post. It is stated that before appointment of the petitioner certain complaints and objections were raised by respondent No. 5. These objections were rejected and the appointments were made. Respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Collector and the Collector and the Commissioner having allowed the appeal, petitioner has filed this writ petition. ( 3. ) DURING the course of hearing of this writ petition, the only ground emphasized on behalf of the petitioner was that respondent No. 5 is not a resident of Madaiyantola and, therefore, she cannot be appointed to the post in question. ( 4. ) PLACING reliance on a circular issued by the Project Officer dated 30-7- 2009 ad the conditions stipulated therein to the effect that for appointment to the post of Dy. Anganwadi Karyakarta, person should be a local resident of the village where the centre is situated and contending that respondent No. 5 is not a local resident of Madaiyantola, challenge is made to the order of appointment. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking me through the documents and the objections has stated that the District Level Scrutiny Committee which recommended for appointment of the petitioner emphasized that petitioner is a resident of local village Madaiyantola. She has been rightly appointed and, therefore, interference made by the Collector and the Commissioner is not warranted and he submits that the action taken by the Collector and the Commissioner is not in accordance with law. ( 5. She has been rightly appointed and, therefore, interference made by the Collector and the Commissioner is not warranted and he submits that the action taken by the Collector and the Commissioner is not in accordance with law. ( 5. ) RESPONDENTS resist the aforesaid and pointed out that there is no separate village as Madaiyantola. The village notified in the revenue records is village Deorikala and Madaiyantola is a local small area in the village Deorikala and, therefore, both petitioner and respondent No. 5 belong to the village Madaiyantola where the centre is situated and, therefore, both the Collector and Commissioner have recorded the finding that no case is made out for interference. ( 6. ) THAT apart, Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 points out that when initially petitioner raised an objection with regard to appointment of respondent No. 5, the matter was considered by the appropriate committee and a report is available in page 16 of the writ petition. The committee found that respondent No. 5 is more meritorious than the petitioner. She has received more marks than the petitioner that is she has got 52.5% marks. She is at serial No. 1 in the merit list whereas the petitioner has only received about 40% marks. Thereafter, finding that both are residents of the same village Deorikala, recommendation made was for appointment of the respondent No. 5, in spite thereof, upholding the appointment of respondent No. 5 another objection was raised by the petitioner and by getting that objection accepted, petitioner is appointed which is unsustainable. Accordingly, it is the case of respondent No. 5 that a more meritorious candidate having been appointed, there is no illegality in the matter and, therefore, the petition be dismissed. ( 7. ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is clear that as per merit, respondent No. 5 is more meritorious than the petitioner having received more marks than the petitioner in the qualifying examination and, therefore in accordance to merit, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that respondent No. 5 should be appointed. However, the main dispute is as to whether the respondent No. 5 is a resident of the local area where the centre is situated and therefore, entitled for appointment. ( 8. However, the main dispute is as to whether the respondent No. 5 is a resident of the local area where the centre is situated and therefore, entitled for appointment. ( 8. ) IN the policy governing appointment to the post in question, the conditions stipulated are available. The same is produced by Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel dated 30th July, 2009. The condition relied upon by Shri Mohan Sausarkar in Hindi reads as under : If the aforesaid provision is taken note of, it would be seen that the conditions stipulate that the candidate should belong to the same village where the Anganwadi centre is being opened. If the orders passed concurrently by the Collector and the Commissioner is taken note of, it would be seen that in his order dated 16-6-2010, the Collector has specifically held that the village notified as per the revenue records is Deorikala, no separate village as Madaiyantola is notified as a separate revenue village. The finding recorded is that the notified village is Deorikala and not Madaiyantola. Madaiyantola is an area is the village i.e. Deorikala where the centre is situated. It is therefore clear that the village where the Anganwadi centre is situated known is Deorikala and admittedly both petitioner and respondent No. 5 are residents of Deorikala. Contention of the petitioner that the centre is situated in Madaiyantola cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that the Collector and Commissioner have recorded a finding that no village as Madaiyantola is notified. Madaiyantola is a specific area in the village Deorikala. That being so, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 9. ) BOTH the Collector and the Commissioner who are the revenue head of the division have recorded the concurrent finding with regard to existence of village Deorikala where the centre is situated and further finding respondent No. 5 to have been appointed to the post in question being more meritorious, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter. ( 10. ) ACCORDINGLY, finding no case made out for interference into the concurrent orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.