Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 29 (MP)

Anjana Dwivedi v. State of M. P.

2014-01-07

SANJAY YADAV

body2014
ORDER 1. This petition is directed against order dated 26.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar; whereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 24.5.2011 passed by Collector, Panna has been dismissed. 2. By order dated 24.5.2011, Collector, Panna has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 which in turn was directed against the appointment of petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarta, ward No.9, Janpad Panchayat, Pawai and has directed for fresh appointment as per the scheme. 3. That, in pursuance to Women and Child Development Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh circular No.F-3-2/06/50-2 dated 10.7.2007 recourse were taken to by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Pawai for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta for ward No.9, Janpad Panchayat, Pawai. 4. Petitioner with 51.25 marks was selected in comparison to respondent No.5 who got 50.00 marks. 5. Selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarta was questioned by respondent No.5 before Collector, Panna on the ground that the petitioner being not a resident of ward No.9 but a resident of ward No.3 was not eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta, Anganwadi Centre ward No.9. 6. The challenge found favour with the Appellate Authority who by order dated 24.5.2011 set aside the appointment of the petitioner and directed the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Pawai to take recourse to for fresh selection to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta for ward No.9. 7. The conclusion was arrived at by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the fact that prior to 21.1.2009, the petitioner though was a resident of ward No.09 but after its bifurcation on 21.1.2009, the petitioner became a resident of ward No.3 and on the date of advertisement/receiving of application for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta i.e. 10.8.2009, the petitioner was registered as a resident and a voter of ward No.03 having name at serial No.229 of the electoral roll. The BPL card produced by the petitioner was found to have been issued on the basis of entry made in the year 2006 as such is of no assistance to the petitioner of her being ascertained as a resident of ward No.9. 8. The BPL card produced by the petitioner was found to have been issued on the basis of entry made in the year 2006 as such is of no assistance to the petitioner of her being ascertained as a resident of ward No.9. 8. This finding led the Collector to intercept with the order of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta as the same was found to be contrary to the policy which stipulates that the appointee must be resident of local place where the Anganwadi Centre is located. 9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar vide impugned order dated 26.2.2013 affirmed the findings arrived at by the Collector, Panna. The Appellate Authority categorically returned a finding that the petitioner on the date of filing of application for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta i.e. 10.8.2009 was recorded as voter residing in ward No.3 and her name appears at serial No.229 in the electoral roll and accordingly found that the petitioner being not a local resident of ward No.9 was held ineligible for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta at Anganwadi Centre situated in ward No.9. 10. 10. The reasons find mention in paragraph No.6 which is extracted below :- **6& mHk; i{kks dh vksj ls mBk;s x;s fcUnqvksa ij fopkj fd;k x;k rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA dysDVj iUuk ds izdj.k esa miyC/k vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj rFkk dyDVj iUuk }kjk ikfjr vius fu.kZ; fnukad 24-5-2011 esa dh xbZ O;k[;k ds vuqlkj uxj iapk;r iobZ ds okMZ dzekad&9 esa lgkf;dk ds in ij p;u ds fy, vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk ekg vxLr 2009 esa vkosnu i= izLrqr fd, x;s gSA e0iz0 jkti= fnukad 29 tuojh 2009 dks uxj iapk;r iobZ ds okMksZ dk foHkktu fd;k x;k gSA uxj iapk;r iobZ ds okMZ dzekad&3 Lokeh foosdkuan okMZ ds ljy Øekad 229 ij vatuk&lRizdk'k dk uke ntZ gSA uxjh; fudk; ds pquko ds nkSjku ifjlheu es mldk uke okMZ dzekad&9 ls okMZ dzekad&3 esa dj fn;k x;k gSA dyDVj }kjk ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k x;k fd gkykafd Jhefr vatuk f}osnh }kjk vius ifr lR; izdk'k ds okMZ Øekad&9 ds chih,y dkMZ dh izfr izLrqr dh gS ftldh ekU;rk gS vkSj chih,y dkMZ rFkk ernkrk lwph nksuks gh ‘kkldh; nLrkost gS ijUrq ijLij fojks/kkHkk”kh fuokl izekf.kr djrs gSA ‘kklu efgyk ,oa cky fodkl foHkkx Hkksiky dh ea'kk vuqlkj dk;ZdrkZ ,oa lgkf;dk dks mlh xzke@okMZ dh fuoklh gksuk pkfg, dk vk'k; ;g gS fd vkaxuokM+h dsUnz esa fu;qDRk dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk lgh le; ij dsUnz esa igqap lds vkSj lacaf/kr fgrxzkfg;ksa dks lgh le; ij leqfpr ykHk izkIr gks ldsA bl izdkj uxj iapk;r iobZ ds okMkZsa dk ifjlheu gksus ds mijkar vihykFkhZ Jhefr vatuk f}osnh iRuh lR; izdk'k f}osnh dk uke okMZ dzekad&3 dh ernkrk lwph esa ntZ gS] tcfd vkaxuokM+h dsUnz okMZ Øekad&9 esa LFkkfir gSA vr% dyDVj iUuk }kjk okMZ Øekad&9 esa 'kklu funsZ'kksa ds varxZr uohu fu;qfDRk dh dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, tks vkns'k fn;k x;k gS mlesa fdlh izdkj ds gLr{ksi djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA** 11. It is vehemently contested by the petitioner that the authorities below have returned a perverse finding that the petitioner is not a resident of ward No.9 whereas, the BPL card and the Adhar Card records that the petitioner is resident of ward No.9. 12. It is vehemently contested by the petitioner that the authorities below have returned a perverse finding that the petitioner is not a resident of ward No.9 whereas, the BPL card and the Adhar Card records that the petitioner is resident of ward No.9. 12. However, when put to the query as to whether the BPL card was issued after the bifurcation of ward which was with effect from 21.1.2009, learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that the card has been issued on the basis of the status as it existed in the year 2006. 13. In view whereof, the BPL card on the basis whereof the petitioner sought appointment as Anganwadi Karyakarta for ward No.9 cannot be given credence because the appointment was in pursuance to applications invited on 10.8.2009 which was after bifurcation of the ward whereafter the petitioner was found to be resident of ward No.3 and even the Adhar Card which has been placed in service to establish that petitioner is resident of ward No.9 was prepared on the basis of declaration by the petitioner herself, therefore, the same is also of no assistance to the petitioner. 14. Petitioner being a resident of ward No.3 was not eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta, Anganwadi Centre situated in ward No.9. 15. In view whereof, findings arrived at by the two authorities below cannot be faulted with as would warrant any interference as the same are based on the cogent material documents on record. 16. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. However, there shall be no costs.