Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 314 (MP)

Shobha Prajapati v. State of M. P.

2015-03-18

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2015
JUDGMENT : K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. Both these petitions were heard analogously since the same are directed against the very same order passed by the second appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar and, therefore, are being decided by this common order. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of W.P. No. 3990/2013 are that petitioner and respondent No. 5 both were the candidates for appointment on the post of Aganwadi Worker in the concerned Aganwadi. After due consideration of the claim of all the applicants a select list was prepared by the Project Officer placing the petitioner in this writ petition at Sl. No. 1 and placing the name of one Ku. Savita Ahirwar at Sl. No. 2. The respondent No. 5 was not satisfied with the said selection. Therefore, she filed an appeal before the Collector, Chhatarpur, which appeal was considered by the Additional Collector, Chhatarpur and was dismissed vide order dated 3.8.2009. It was categorically held by the Collector on the basis of documents placed on record as also the documents annexed with the application, that the petitioner in this writ petition was the local resident of the area where the Aganwadi was to be established and, therefore, she was rightly selected by the selection authority. 3. Being aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 5 preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, which has been considered and after holding that the selection was not in terms of the scheme made by the State Government on 10.7.2007, the entire selection was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Chhatarpur for initiating the process of selection afresh. The petitioner in this petition is aggrieved by this part of the order as her selection has been set aside by the second appellate authority. 4. W.P. No. 18443/2013 has been filed by Smt. Geeta Asati calling in question the same order of second appellate authority on the ground that when the finding was recorded that the appointment of selected candidate i.e. the respondent No. 6 in the writ petition (who is petitioner in W.P. No. 3990/2013) was set aside, the finding should have been given in respect of the appointment of the petitioner in this case. Instead direction is given for conducting the selection afresh. Therefore, to that extent the order impugned is bad in law. Instead direction is given for conducting the selection afresh. Therefore, to that extent the order impugned is bad in law. It is contended that while passing the order, all the documents placed on record, the inspection report etc. were taken note of and ultimately it was found that the husband of respondent No. 6 was in fact working as an Assistant Teacher and was residing at Isha Nagar and was not residing at Rampur Kurra. Earlier, since he was residing at that place, his name alongwith his family members was included in the voter list of the said village Rampur Kurra, but, after enquiry, since it was found that he was not residing in the said village for the last 8-9 years, the name of the said person was removed from the list of persons living below the poverty line. This fact was pointed out to the husband of the respondent No. 6 and he was instructed not to use the ration card issued in that respect any longer. He has constructed his own house at Isha Nagar where he is residing alongwith his family and in the voter list of said village Isha Nagar, the names of the family members of the said husband of respondent No. 6 are duly recorded. Since this enquiry was already conducted and a finding was already recorded, it was not necessary for the second appellate authority to set aside the entire proceedings of selection and to remit back the matter for appointment of a suitable person. Candidature of the petitioner in this case was wrongly rejected and, therefore, she should have been directed to be appointed in place of respondent No. 6. 5. Since both the writ petitions were heard together, in fact the findings recorded by the courts below are to be examined in terms of the stand taken by the respondents. As far as the official respondents are concerned, they have filed a return in W.P. No. 3990/2013, but have chosen not to file any return in the companion Writ Petition No. 18443/2013. As far as the official respondents are concerned, they have filed a return in W.P. No. 3990/2013, but have chosen not to file any return in the companion Writ Petition No. 18443/2013. The return filed in the aforesaid writ petition contends that the proceedings were rightly done by the second appellate authority and since it was found that without holding any enquiry in respect of the allegations that the petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 3990/2013 was not the local resident of the village where the Aganwadi was established, the Additional Collector passed the order. The second appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar rightly interfered in the order passed by the Additional Collector and has given the findings in detail. It is contended that since the selection was vitiated because of the selection of a candidate, who was not local resident of the area, the direction was rightly issued by the second appellate authority to initiate the process afresh by inviting the applications. Nothing wrong is committed by the official respondents in ordering so. 6. One of the glaring fact is that W.P. No. 3990/2013 was filed describing the residential status of the petitioner as resident of Isha Nagar, Tehsil and District Chhatarpur. When this fact was pointed out to the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition prayed for an opportunity to file an affidavit to disclose whether the petitioner was resident of Isha Nagar or was residing at village Rampur Kurra. Such an affidavit dated 9.3.2014 has been filed by the petitioner in that writ petition, which is not controverted. For that reason, the documents available on record of this writ petition are examined. 7. The petitioner in W.P. No. 3990/2013 has filed on record the scheme dated 10.7.2007 made by the State Government for making appointment on the post of Aganwadi Worker. Another document is the order of appointment of the petitioner on the said post. The third document is the order passed by the Additional Collector in the appeal of respondent No. 5 and finally the order impugned passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar. Not a single document has been placed on record to show that the petitioner in W.P. No. 3990/2013 was local resident of village Rampur Kurra, alongwith the writ petition. The third document is the order passed by the Additional Collector in the appeal of respondent No. 5 and finally the order impugned passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar. Not a single document has been placed on record to show that the petitioner in W.P. No. 3990/2013 was local resident of village Rampur Kurra, alongwith the writ petition. However, certain documents have been filed alongwith the affidavit aforesaid indicating that a Adhar Card is issued to the petitioner by the Government of India. She has been given a ration card where the fact is mentioned that she is residing at Gram Kumharan Purva Rampur. The serial number of the BPL list is also mentioned in the said document. Apart from the aforesaid documents, no other document has been placed on record by the petitioner. Whether such documents are sufficient to controvert the findings recorded by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in his order or not is to be examined. 8. The enquiry with respect to the local residence of the present petitioner was conducted, the facts have been verified and it is categorically recorded that on enquiry conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, Isha Nagar a report was submitted on 14.9.2009 after the spot inspection by the Patwari and it was found that the husband of the present petitioner is in government service and is presently posted in Isha Nagar and he was not residing in village Rampur Kurra. The Gram Panchayat has also certified that the present petitioner or her husband or family members were not residing in village Rampur Kurra. Earlier the ration card issued in the name of the husband of the petitioner was already cancelled and husband of the petitioner was intimated that he is not required to use the Ration Card No. 033231 any longer. The Headmaster of the Government Middle School, Rampur Kurra has also issued a certificate that the husband of the present petitioner by name Brajlal Prajapati was posted in the school at Rampur Kurra only up to the year 1996. Therefore, it was held that the petitioner was not the local resident of the area of village Rampur Kurra. 9. To upset such a finding or to show that the findings were perverse, it was incumbent upon the petitioner herein to show that the findings were not properly recorded. Therefore, it was held that the petitioner was not the local resident of the area of village Rampur Kurra. 9. To upset such a finding or to show that the findings were perverse, it was incumbent upon the petitioner herein to show that the findings were not properly recorded. Neither the inspection report dated 14.9.2009 was disputed nor any other fact was stated except the affidavit filed before this Court in the present writ petition. The petitioner has relied only on the ration card which was said to be cancelled and annexed a copy of the same alongwith her affidavit. However, Adhar Card was got prepared and submitted before this Court. It is clear from the date mentioned in the said Adhar Card that the same was prepared on 24.1.2014. On the basis of these documents, which were either cancelled, or any Adhar Card later on issued, it cannot be said that the petitioner herein become a local resident of the village Rampur Kurra. The findings recorded by the Commissioner have not been met out in appropriate manner by the petitioner. 10. Undisputedly, if a complaint is made with respect to the local residence of any person, that complaint is to be enquired into by the authorities in appropriate manner. The petitioner in W.P. No. 3990/2013 has utterly failed to prove that she was local resident of village Rampur Kurra and that the enquiry conducted in that respect by the authorities, relied by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar was not just and proper. 11. Similarly the petitioner in W.P. No. 18443/2013 has completely failed to prove that she was eligible for appointment on the post of Aganwadi Worker as she had obtained the minimum qualification prescribed in terms of the scheme on the basis of which the selection was made. 12. The Commissioner in his order has specifically considered these aspects in paragraph-5. It is the finding recorded that the respondent No. 5 (petitioner in W.P. No. 18443/2013) was not having the requisite qualification prescribed for appointment on the post of Aganwadi Worker. The respondent No. 5 was said to have passed only 10th Board examination and, therefore, in terms of the educational qualification prescribed, she was said to be ineligible to be appointed on the post. However, it is not pointed out by the respondent No. 5 that she was qualified and had the qualification as prescribed. The respondent No. 5 was said to have passed only 10th Board examination and, therefore, in terms of the educational qualification prescribed, she was said to be ineligible to be appointed on the post. However, it is not pointed out by the respondent No. 5 that she was qualified and had the qualification as prescribed. The reliance is placed by the respondent No. 5 by filing a document in her writ petition that she was eligible to be appointed on the post in terms of circular dated 27.6.2006 by which the appointments of Aganwadi Workers were earlier prescribed. However, the said circular is irrelevant as the selection was initiated by the official respondents after coming into force of circular dated 1.7.2007. To that extent, even the order passed by the second appellate authority cannot be said to be bad even on the grounds raised by the respondent No. 5 in her companion writ petition. 13. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove, it is clear that both the writ petitioners have failed to prove their claim and accordingly cannot be granted any relief in their respective writ petitions. Resultantly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. The authorities are directed to comply with the order of Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar dated 24.12.2012 within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties to the writ petitions to bear their own costs.