Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1406 (MP)

Savita Chourasia v. State of M. P.

2014-11-03

C.V.SIRPURKAR, RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
ORDER 1. I.A.No.4128/2014 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Commissioner and the writ Court in the matter of appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta to Ward No.5 Palera District Tikamgarh, this appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 3. Facts of the case goes to show that on 10th of July, 2007, an advertisement was issued calling for willing candidates to submit their applications for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta. It seems that five candidates submitted their candidature and based on the same a select list provisional in nature was prepared by the Project Officer after due recommendations of the Selection Committee. The select list is Annexure-P/7. In the said list prepared, appellant herein Smt. Savita Chourasia was awarded 41.04% marks and she was shown at serial No.3 of the merit list. Respondent herein Smt. Sulekha Tiwari even though she received 45.30% marks was kept at serial No.1 of the merit list and it was indicated in the note to the select list that Smt. Sulekha Tiwari has prepared a BPL card issued by the authority of Ward No.6 and therefore it was held that she is ineligible for appointment. When this matter was placed before the competent appointing authority, the Committee found that Smt. Sulekha Tiwari is a resident of Ward No.5, she is eligible for appointment and merely because her BPL is issued by Ward No.6 she being a more meritorious candidate cannot be denied appointment. Accordingly, disagreeing with the observations made in the provisional merit list, the competent authority issued a appointment letter appointing respondent No.3 Smt. Sulekha Tiwari on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal and the Commissioner also dismissed the same and finally the matter came to the writ Court and the writ Court also dismissed the writ petition and therefore this appeal. 5. Even though learned writ Court has found in the impugned order that selected candidate one Smt. Pushpa Chadar has not been impleaded and therefore the proceedings were not correct, the writ Court has also gone into the merits of the matter and found that Smt. Sulekha Tiwari has been properly appointed. 5. Even though learned writ Court has found in the impugned order that selected candidate one Smt. Pushpa Chadar has not been impleaded and therefore the proceedings were not correct, the writ Court has also gone into the merits of the matter and found that Smt. Sulekha Tiwari has been properly appointed. It seems that writ Court in mentioning the name of Pushpa Chadar in the order it was the typographical error. 6. As far as the merits of the matter is concerned, we have gone through the select list and we find that as per select list respondent No.3 Smt. Sulekha Tiwari was more meritorious having received 45.30% marks in comparison to the petitioner who has received 41.04 % marks. The only reason why selection of respondent No.3 Smt. Sulekha Tiwari is assailed is that the BPL card issued to her is from Ward No.10 and therefore she cannot be appointed. However, the appointing authority, the Commissioner and the writ Court found that Smt. Sulekha Tiwari is a resident of Ward No.5, she is entitled for appointment but merely because BPL card shows her name in Ward No.6 that cannot be ground for denying her appointment where she is found to be eligible for appointment being a more meritorious candidate. The reasonable approach adopted by the authorities concerned concurrent in nature being in accordance with law, we find no reason to interfere into the matter. 7. Accordingly, finding no ground in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed.