Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 626 (MP)

Rewati Bai v. State of M. P.

2013-05-10

Sujoy Paul

body2013
ORDER 1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(a) That, impugned order, Annexure P/1, dated 25.12.2011 passed by the respondent No.4 may kindly be set aside. (b) That, order Annexure P-11 dated 19.3.2010 may kindly be maintained.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the decision of this matter are as under:- The petitioner was appointed as Aganwadi Worker by order dated 19.3.2010 (Annexure P-11). The respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the Collector bearing Appeal No. 23/10-11 Appeal, which was decided by the Collector on 30.4.2011, Annexure P-14. A bare perusal of the Collector’s order shows that the appointment order of the petitioner dated 19.3.2010 was set aside and matter was remitted back to the subordinate office to conduct a confidential enquiry to examine the documents of the parties and then proceed for the purpose of appointment. This order of Collector was unsuccessfully challenged by present petitioner before the Commissioner, who rejected the appeal by order dated 1.11.2011, Annexure P-17. Thereafter, in obedience of the order passed by the said authorities, the Project Officer passed the impugned order, Annexure P-1 dated 25.12.2011, whereby petitioner’s services are terminated. It is assailed by Shri Bhadoriya on following grounds:- (i) The only objection of respondent No.5 before the Collector was that the petitioner is an impostor and working on somebody’s name and, therefore, the only thing which was required to be seen by Collector was whether the petitioner is an impostor. (ii) As per the orders of Collector and Commissioner, the respondents were required to conduct an enquiry to examine the genuineness and correctness of the documents of the eligible candidates. He submits that the Project Officer has not conducted the said enquiry and mechanically passed the order dated 25.12.2011, which deserves to be set aside. 3. Shri Pravin Newaskar and Mrs. Meena Chaturvedi supported the order. It is stated that the respondent No.5 preferred an appeal on various grounds against the present petitioner including the ground of imposture. Mrs. Chaturvedi submits that in the appointment order of the petitioner it is mentioned that if the documents are found to be incorrect, her services could be terminated. It is further argued by the respondents that Annexure P-1 is only a consequential order and the basic orders passed by Collector and Commissioner are not called in question. 4. Mrs. Chaturvedi submits that in the appointment order of the petitioner it is mentioned that if the documents are found to be incorrect, her services could be terminated. It is further argued by the respondents that Annexure P-1 is only a consequential order and the basic orders passed by Collector and Commissioner are not called in question. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The order of Collector dated 30.4.2011 clearly shows that the petitioner’s appointment order was cancelled. This order was upheld by the Commissioner. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order of Collector and order of Commissioner. Thus, the validity of these orders cannot be examined in absence of a specific challenge to these orders in the relief clause. So far the contention of Shri Bhadoriya that no confidential enquiry to examine the genuineness and correctness of the documents is conducted is concerned, in my opinion, this argument is without there being any basis. Despite specific query from the Bench, Shri Bhadoriya is unable to point out any pleading wherein it is stated that on remand the Project Officer has not conducted the said enquiry. The enquiry was directed to be conducted in a confidential manner, which was not required to be disclosed in the order, Annexure P-1. There is no assertion in the writ petition that no such enquiry is conducted before issuance of Annexure P-1. In absence of aforesaid pleading and specific challenge to Annexure P/1 on the ground of not conducting the enquiry, no flaw can be found in the impugned order. 6. In my opinion, in absence of challenge to the orders of Collector and Commissioner, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the findings of those orders. Impugned order, Annexure P-1 is a consequential order which is based on the orders of the Collector and Commissioner. 7. I find no reason to interfere in this petition. Petition being bereft of merits and substance is hereby dismissed. Interim relief granted by this Court on 22.2.2012 shall stand vacated. No costs.