Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1631 (MP)

Subhashati v. Chandrajyoti Singh

2014-12-09

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2014
JUDGMENT : K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. This matter is posted today for orders on IA No. 8546/2014, an application for urgent hearing. However, looking to the controversy involved and the fact that the writ petition is not yet admitted though the notices were issued to the respondents and the respondents No. 2 and 3 have already filed their return, the matter is heard finally. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 8.10.2010 passed in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of Additional Collector, Katni, passed on 21.4.2010 in an appeal filed by the respondent No. 1. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner made an application pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2 for her appointment on the post of Aganwadi Worker. The said application was considered on its merits and since the petitioner was found meritorious enough, she was placed at Sl.No.1 in the select list and accordingly an order of appointment was issued in her respect on 27.10.2009. It appears that the respondent No. 1 was also one of the candidates, but since she was not selected and appointed, she filed an appeal against the said order before the Additional Collector, Katni. Though the appeal was contested by the petitioner, yet the Additional Collector, Katni, recording a finding that the concerned Aganwadi was to be opened at Ward No. 11 of the village whereas the petitioner was the resident of Ward No. 12 and thus she was not eligible to be appointed in the said Aganwadi, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner with a direction to take further action for appointment of respondent No. 1. This order was sought to be challenged in Second Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, but at the initial stage of admission the Second Appeal was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 4. While issuing notices, this Court has granted time to respondent No. 1 to place her contest in respect of the claim made in the writ petition. The order sheet reflects that opportunity was granted to the respondent No. 1 and even SPC was issued to her intimating about the pendency of the present writ petition, but no return whatsoever has been filed by her though a caveat was lodged. The order sheet reflects that opportunity was granted to the respondent No. 1 and even SPC was issued to her intimating about the pendency of the present writ petition, but no return whatsoever has been filed by her though a caveat was lodged. The respondents No. 2 and 3 alone have filed their return contending inter-alia that the selection of the petitioner was improperly made as she was not the local resident of Ward No. 11 where the Aganwadi Centre was to be opened and, therefore, findings were recorded by the appellate authority. It is contended that since the quasi judicial function is discharged by the appellate authority, the concurrent findings recorded by the said authority are not to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that since the writ petition is misconceived, the same deserved to be dismissed. 5. From the averments made in the return it is not clear what was the basis of findings recorded by the Collector that the Aganwadi Centre was to be opened in Ward No. 11. The documents placed on record by the petitioner indicate that the advertisement was issued by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Rithi, District Katni on 31.7.2009 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Aganwadi Worker in 42 centres, but it was nowhere said that as to which particular centre was sanctioned for which particular ward. Therefore, it was not opened to the authorities to hold that the concerned Aganwadi Centre was to be opened in Ward No. 11 where the petitioner was not residing and, therefore, her application was not to be considered at all. Without there being any foundation, reasons or categorical findings, the order could not have been passed by the Additional Collector holding that the Aganwadi Centre was to be opened in Ward No. 11 where the petitioner was not residing and, therefore, she was not to be given appointment. Only on this short question the order impugned dated 21.4.2010 cannot be sustained. If the offers were made for appointment in any of the Aganwadi within the area indicated in the advertisement, the application of the petitioner could not have been said to be invalid in any manner. Admittedly she was the most meritorious candidate and was rightly selected by the Committee. 6. If the offers were made for appointment in any of the Aganwadi within the area indicated in the advertisement, the application of the petitioner could not have been said to be invalid in any manner. Admittedly she was the most meritorious candidate and was rightly selected by the Committee. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 21.4.2010 and 8.10.2010 are hereby quashed. The appointment of the petitioner as Aganwadi Worker is upheld. If the respondent No. 1 is appointed pursuant to the order impugned, which has been quashed by this Court, she would not be allowed to continue on the post any longer, instead the petitioner be allowed to work as Aganwadi Worker in Ward No. 11. 7. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.