Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 768 (MP)

Meena Rajpoot v. State of M. P.

2017-06-22

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2017
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 14.5.2012 passed by respondent No.2, Collector, Shivpuri, whereby Collector, Shivpuri has allowed the appeal as was filed by respondent No.6- Smt. Neetu Rajput and has upheld her appointment on the post of Up-Aaganwadi Karyakarta in preference to the petitioner by holding that petitioner was not entitled to count for BPL marks for the reasons stated in the order passed by the Collector. 2. It is petitioner's contention that petitioner was having a BPL ration card along with her brother Dharmendra Singh Rajawat and copy of such BPL ration card has been enclosed by her as Annexure P-6. According to her, BPL survey had taken place in the year 2002-03 in which name of Dharmendra Singh Rajawat is mentioned at serial No.315 and accordingly Dharmendra Singh was issued said BPL ration card in the year 2006. According to the petitioner, since Dharmendra Singh had obtained an oral partition from his family and had separated from his father, therefore, he got a ration card prepared for himself and his sister i.e. petitioner Ku. Meena Rajput. On the strength of such ration card, she had made a representation to the authorities i.e. contained in Annexure P-3 for granting her extra marks for BPL card and accordingly the Project Officer had allowed her representation and granted her extra marks for possessing BPL ration card and accordingly the appointment order was issued in her favour. The Collector, Shivpuri erred in setting aside the order passed by the Project Officer on arbitrary and frivolous grounds, and therefore, the order passed by the Collector, Shivpuri deserves to be and be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the actual reason for the petitioner to obtain a separate ration card along with her brother was that her father being a conservative upper caste person was not willing to obtain a BPL card due to fear of hindrances in the marriage of petitioner and though she was possessing APL card on the strength of some oral partition between her father and brother, she had obtained a separate ration card along with her brother, and, therefore, there is no bar or shortcoming in granting extra marks for BPL category by the Project Officer. 4. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 on the other hand has produced copy of ration card as was obtained by the petitioner along with her brother as Annexure R/6-6, in which the column of BPL list serial number and voter list serial number is blank. It is submitted that since petitioner was not a member of BPL list, she had left these columns blank, and, therefore, subsequently producing a BPL card, that too along with her brother, will not give her any benefit of BPL category. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the acknowledgment which was issued by the Project Officer on 12.8.2009 in which in column 8 it is categorically mentioned that petitioner had not enclosed copy of BPL certificate issued by the competent authority. 5. This argument has been supported by learned Panel Lawyer for the State. It is also submitted that since petitioner was a unmarried lady, she was required to produce ration card of her father and not of her brother and since her father was possessing APL card which is an admitted position and not disputed by the petitioner, petitioner is not entitled to any extra marks on account of any BPL card issued in favour of her brother because in any case inclusion of name of the petitioner in the BPL ration card issued to her brother will be treated as erroneous. It is also submitted that there is no mention of any relationship between the head of the family to whom BPL ration card was issued and the petitioner and such card as was obtained fraudulently by the petitioner's brother will not entitle her to seek any advantage of belonging to BPL category. In this regard, attention of this Court has been invited to the policy dated 10.7.2007 issued by the State Government of M.P., Women and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Bhopal, wherein it is mentioned that concerned applicant should be permanent resident of concerned village/ ward of urban area. In this regard, attention of this Court has been invited to the policy dated 10.7.2007 issued by the State Government of M.P., Women and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Bhopal, wherein it is mentioned that concerned applicant should be permanent resident of concerned village/ ward of urban area. The relevant portion reads as under:- ^^xzke@uxjh; {ks= ds okMZ esa LFkk;h fuoklh ds izek.k ds fy;s jk'ku dkMZ@lacafèkr xzke@uxjh; {ks= ds okMZ dh vn~;ru ernkrk lwph@vn~;ru chŒihŒ,yŒ lwph esa efgyk dk uke ntZ gksuk pkfg, vFkok vfookfgr efgyk gksus ij mlds firk dk uke rFkk fookfgr efgyk gksus mlds ifr dk uke ntZ gksuk pkfg,A mDr nksuksa Hkh miyC/k ugha gksus ij ,lŒMhŒ,eŒ@rglhynkj }kjk tkjh LFkkuh; fuokl ds izek.k i= dks ekU; fd;k tk ldrk gSA** Placing reliance on this provision, it is mentioned that in case of unmarried woman, name of her father should have been mentioned and in case of a married woman name of her husband should have been mentioned. But in the present case, since name of petitioner's brother is mentioned in the ration card, that ration card cannot be considered to be a valid ration card entitling the petitioner to claim marks for BPL category. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rebutted this submission and has placed reliance on the word Adhva and submits that there is no bar on issuance of ration card in the name of brother and sister, and therefore, the petitioner's claim cannot be thrown only on the ground that her name has been shown in the BPL ration card issued to her brother. 7. Before adverting to further facts of the case, it is necessary to refer to the definition of family card as is given in clause 2(c) of the M.P. Food Stuffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960, according to which, “Family Card” means a card or document issued to the head of a family under or in pursuance of the provisions of this Order. Clause 5(1-a)(ii) is also important which reads as under:- “5(1-a) No person shall - (i) ...... (ii) give incorrect details or information while applying for a family card.” In clause 2(g) of the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 family is defined as family means husband, wife and minor children. Clause 5(1-a)(ii) is also important which reads as under:- “5(1-a) No person shall - (i) ...... (ii) give incorrect details or information while applying for a family card.” In clause 2(g) of the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 family is defined as family means husband, wife and minor children. In the application form, date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 8.9.1988 as is apparent from Annexure P-8 submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner's counsel has categorically mentioned that impugned ration card was issued in favour of Dharmendra Singh son of Sultan Singh on the basis of survey which was carried out in the year 2002-03. Therefore it is apparent that petitioner Ku. Meena Rajput was a minor at the time of survey and her name could not have been included in the ration card along with her brother Dharmendra inasmuch as, as per the definition of family she being a minor was required to be clubbed with her father. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the argument put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an oral partition, and therefore, to accrue the benefits of BPL category, petitioner and her brother had obtained separate ration card can be accepted as far as petitioner is concerned. Further as per the definition of family card, it is to be issued to the head of a family and brother of a minor sister during survival of father cannot be termed as head of the family. In the enclosed ration card relation of the petitioner with Dharmendra is not disclosed which falls within provisions of clause 5(1-a)(ii) extracted above. This Court is conscious of the fact that it has allowed Writ Petition No.3520/2017 filed by brother of the petitioner wherein cancellation of BPL ration card issued in his favour was under challenge and that order of cancellation has been set aside, but notwithstanding with this, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner because the petitioner cannot escape the definition of family and arbitrarily permit herself to be clubbed with her brother, specially when at the time of survey she was admittedly minor and it is not the case of the petitioner that since she had attained majority, therefore, she was entitled for issuance of a separate ration card. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that ration card Annexure (P-6) was issued on 1.1.2006 and as on 1.1.2006 also petitioner had not attained majority, therefore, she was not entitled for a separate ration card. In view of such appreciation of material available on record, this Court is of the view that since petitioner had left column of BPL number in her application form blank and did not file copy of BPL certificate along with application form and there is no mention of enclosure of BPL certificate alongwith the application, she has been rightly held to be not entitled for BPL marks by the Collector Shivpuri and she was not entitled to get her name clubbed with her brother on the basis of so called oral partition despite the fact that at the time of survey she was minor. Thus, the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner by the Project Officer is erroneous and deserves to be set aside, as has been done by the Collector, Shivpuri. Consequently, the order of the Collector is maintained. Petition fails and is dismissed.