Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 105 (MP)

Ramesh Kumar Sharma v. State of MP

2017-01-19

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2017
ORDER : Vivek Agarwal, J. Heard. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order passed by the Court of Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, whereby the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior has allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.7-Shacheendra Kumar Sharma and has directed the authorities to grant appointment to respondent no.7 on the post of Guruji. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the learned Additional Commissioner has overlooked the fact that respondent no.7 was not a candidate before the Gram Panchayat and therefore his candidature could not have been taken into consideration by the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior erred in passing the impugned order directing the authorities to consider the case of respondent no.7-Shacheendra Kumar Sharma for appointment on the ground that he was the only local candidate of Kamlawada for which place vacancy of Guruji was issued. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is against the record and the ground that the petitioner is not a resident of village Kamlawada is not sustainable inasmuch as his appointment order was issued after thorough inquiry in the matter. It is also submitted that respondent no.7 is not a local resident and without looking into the fact that he is not a local bona fide resident his case has been allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.7, on the other hand, submits that he was very much a candidate before the Selection Committee and his application was available with Gram Sabha of Kamlawada as is apparent from a copy of resolution dated 26.01.2003 filed by present respondent no.7 as Annexure R/2. It is seen that his application was received by Gram Sabha and that Gram Sabha had forwarded all the eight applications with a note that respondent no.7 was resident of the same village; whereas other 07 applicants were residents of Panchayat Headquarters Kadwaya. This fact has not been considered by the authorities and without considering the aspect of local resident of respondent no.7, the order was issued in favour of the petitioner. 4. This fact has not been considered by the authorities and without considering the aspect of local resident of respondent no.7, the order was issued in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 has also drawn attention of this Court to the policy of the State Government, which has been framed for selection of Guruji and has specifically pointed out that in the policy itself, it is clearly mentioned that the candidate seeking appointment as Guruji should be the local person of habitat in which EGS School is to be opened and in case the habitat is not having local candidate having minimum educational qualification, then another person from the village/Village Panchayat can be considered, under which such habitation falls. Thus placing reliance to this specific provision, the learned counsel for respondent no.7 has supported the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and has submitted that since respondent no.7 was a local candidate, therefore this ground of the petitioner that the application was not available to the Gram Panchayat, being factually incorrect and not tenable, the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neelam Singh Sikarwar v. State of M.P. & Others as reported in 2015 (1) MPLJ 297 , wherein this Court has held that the requirement of residence in a particular village where Aanganwadi is situated is not unconstitutional. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Raghvendra Singh v. State of MP & Others as reported in 2015 (3) MPLJ 356, wherein in the matter of a Panchayat Karmi it has been held that since the post of Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary is a post in district cadre transferable within district, requirement of a person being a local resident is not at all mandatory in nature. 7. In the present case, the facts are more close to that of an Aanganwadi worker inasmuch as EGS School is to be opened for those localities/habitations where there are no facilities of School in the close-by locality and where 40 children are available in a non-tribal area and 25 children in a tribal area. 7. In the present case, the facts are more close to that of an Aanganwadi worker inasmuch as EGS School is to be opened for those localities/habitations where there are no facilities of School in the close-by locality and where 40 children are available in a non-tribal area and 25 children in a tribal area. Another requirement is that Guruji to be appointed is to be a local person and there is a specific provision in the policy to give preference to the person from the same locality/habitation having minimum educational qualification. Only as respondent no.7 fulfilled this requirement of local residence and also possesses the minimum educational qualification and as has been discussed above his application was received by the Gram Panchayat in time and was forwarded by the Gram Panchayat for consideration, non-consideration of this aspect of being a local candidate was in violation of the policy and therefore the order of the Additional Commissioner cannot be faulted with. Thus, the order of the Additional Commissioner being in consonance with the provisions of the policy and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Neelam Singh Sikarwar (Supra), this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules.