Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 135 (MP)

Anusuiya Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-02-03

S.K.GANGELE

body2015
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order passed by the Collector dated 16.1.2009 and also against the order dated 14.7.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa. 2. An advertisement in regard to appointment of Aganwadi worker for Ward No.39, Nagar Palika Nigam, Singrouli, Block Waidhan, district Sidhi was issued. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, six applications were received and the petitioner was appointed to the post of Aganwadi worker. Respondent No.5 submitted an appeal before the Collector, Singrouli against the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that she belongs to backward community and received 44.27% marks in the intermediate examination. However, petitioner received only 38.88% marks and she was of general category, hence her appointment was illegal. The Additional Collector, after considering the circular issued by the Government in regard to appointment of Aganwadi worker has held that as per the circular the widow, deserted women, and the women belonging to backward class be given priority in the matter of appointment of Aganwadi worker, hence the authorities have violated the criteria in regard to appointment of the petitioner as Aganwadi worker. Consequently, the Addl. Collector, set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner as Aganwadi worker and directed the Officer of Department of Women and Child Development, Waidhan to issue appointment order of eligible candidate in accordance with the circular issued by the Government. Against the aforesaid order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner upheld the order passed by the Addl. Collector. 3. It is admitted fact that the petitioner belongs to general category candidate and respondent No.5 belongs to backward class. She is also a widow. She received higher marks in the intermediate examination. As per the circular issued by the Government dated 27.5.2006, the criteria was fixed for selection to the post of Aganwadi worker. This Court in Writ Petition No.6385/2009 has upheld the criteria. She is also a widow. She received higher marks in the intermediate examination. As per the circular issued by the Government dated 27.5.2006, the criteria was fixed for selection to the post of Aganwadi worker. This Court in Writ Petition No.6385/2009 has upheld the criteria. The same reads as under:- ^^v&1- fu;qfDr gsrq vgZrk,a vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ gsrq p;fur dh tkus okyh efgyk dh fuEukuqlkj vgZrk,a gksuh pkfg, %& 1- efgyk dh mez 18 o”kZ ls 45 o”kZ ds e/; gksuk pkfg,A 2- efgyk dk uke ml xzke@okMZ dh ernkrk lwph esa ntZ gksuk pkfg,A 3- og efgyk mlh xzke@okMZ dh LFkk;h fuoklh gksuk pkfg,A 4- p;fur dh tkus okyh vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ dks p;u izfØ;k ls izR;{k ;k vizR;{k laca/k j[kus okys ljdkjh deZpkjh vFkok iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa@uxjh; fudk;ksa ds fuokZfpr vFkok euksuhr lnL; vFkok mlds lxs laca/kh ugha gksuk pkfg,A lxs laca/kh ls vfHkizk; gS fd ‘kkldh; vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ds firk] ekrk] HkkbZ] cgu] ifr] ifRu] iq=&iq=h] llqj&lkl] lkyk ¼cznj bu ykW½ lkyh ¼flLVj bu ykW½ nkekn ¼lu bu ykW½ iq= o/kqA 5- vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ ds fy, p;fur dh tkus okyh efgyk LFkkuh; leqnk; dks Lohdk;Z gks rFkk mlesa usrRo iznku djus dh {kerk gksA 6- vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ dks bl ;kstuk ds varxZr fofHkUu lsok;sa iznku djuh gksrh gS o blds fy, mUgsa dkQh fjdkMZ dk la/kkj.k djuk gksrk gS vr% uxjh; ,oa lkekU; xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa efgyk vfuok;Zr% gk;jlsds.Mjh@b.Vj mRrh.kZ gksA vkfnoklh {ks= esa nloha d{kk mRrh.kZ efgyk miyC/k u gksus dh n’kk eas de ls de vkBoha d{kk mRrh.kZ efgyk dks vafre fodYi ds :i esa fu;qfDr nh tkuk pkfg,A v&2- fu;qfDr esa izkFkfedrk%& ;fn ,d ls vf/kd efgyk mEehnokj mijksDr vuqlkj leku ekin.M o ;ksX;rk j[krh gSa rks fuEukuqlkj dze esa izkFkfedrk nh tk,%& 1- xjhch js[kk ds uhps jgus okyh vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vuqlwfpr tkfr oxZ dh mlh Øe esa Øe’k% fo/kok] ifjR;Drk 30 o”kZ ls vf/kd vk;q dh vfookfgrk] vU; efgykA 2- xjhch js[kk ls uhps jgus okyh fiNM+k oxZ] vukjf{kr oxZ dh mlh Øe esa fo/kok ifjR;Drk 30 o”kZ ls vf/kd vk;q dh vfookfgrk] vU; efgykA 3- ,slh vkaxuokM+h lgkf;dk,a ftUgksusa ikap o”kZ dh lsok vof/k larks”ktud ,oa fu;fer :i ls iw.kZ dh gS ,oa ftudh ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk%& v- ‘kgjh vkaxuokM+h dsUnz gksus ij bUVj mRrh.kZA c- xzkeh.k vkaxuokM+h dsUnz gksus ij eSfVªd mRrh.kZA l- vkfnoklh dsUnz gksus ij ikapoh mRrh.kZ gks mUgsa fjDr vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ ds in ij izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr nh tk,xhA 4- f’k’kq f’k{kk dsUnz dh nhnh;ksa dks tks fd vfuok;Z ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk] vuqHko j[krh gksa mUgsa] vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ ds fjDr in ij fu;qfDr esa izkFkfedrk nh tk,A 5- vkfnetkfr dY;k.k foHkkx }kjk lapkfyr vkJe ‘kkykvksa esa mRrh.kZ gksusokyh ,oa fu/kkZfjr vgZrk j[kus okyh vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr dh efgykvksa dks mudh tkfr ckgqY; okys xzke@okMZ esa vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds fjDr inksa ij fu;qfDr esa izkFkfedrk nh tk,aA vkfnoklh ckgqY; {ks= esa bl izdkj dh fu;qfDr fn;s tkus dk fo’ks”k /;ku j[kk tk,A ** 4. From perusal of the criteria fixed by the Government, it is clear that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi worker, hence, in my opinion, the authorities have rightly held that appointment of petitioner as Aganwadi worker was not in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that respondent No.5 was not the resident of the concerning ward, hence she was not eligible to be appointed as Aganwadi worker. However, this point has not been considered by the authorities, hence in the writ petition this point cannot be considered and the Addl. Collector has already held that the other candidates were residents of the area. 6. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no merits in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No cost. Anshuman Singh for petitioner; S. M. Lal Government Advocate for respondentd No.1 to 4; B. K. Bais for respondent No.5; P. K. Saxena for respondent No.6.