Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 782 (MP)

Anjani Mehra v. State of M. P.

2018-09-11

NANDITA DUBEY

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 17.7.2018 (Annexure P-5) and 22.11.2017 (Annexure P-4), whereby the appointment order dated 22.9.2016 of the petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 was allowed. 3. Project Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Gotegaon, district Narsinghpur has invited applications for appointment of Anganwadi Worker from 21.6.2016 to 1.7.2016. Petitioner alongwith other 50 candidates applied for the same, After scrutiny, a final result was published on 26.7.2016 and objections were thereafter invited on or before 5.8.2016. The District Selection Committee, after deciding the objections, placed respondent No.5 at Si. No. 10, for the reason that she did not file the mark sheet of VI Semester of B.A., hence no bonus marks for ‘graduate’ were awarded to her, whereas the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 3 and her appointment letter was issued on 22.9.2016. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, who vide order dated 22.11.2017, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of appointment of petitioner and appointed respondent No. 5 as Anganwadi Worker. Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against the said order before the respondent No.2, Commissioner, which was dismissed on 17.7.2018. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents No. 2 and 3 have failed to consider that respondent No.5 did not file the mark sheet of VIth Semester with the application form, hence the Committee has rightly not awarded 10 bonus marks to respondent No. 5, The petitioner being graduate was awarded 10 bonus marks and placed at Sl.No. 3. It is further argued that as per Scheme of the State Government, time limit for filing the appeal against the order of termination/appointment of Anganwadi Worker is 10 days from the date of publication of select list before the Collector, hence the appeal filed by respondent No.5 was time barred. It is urged that the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 was entertained in violation of Rules and Schemes. 5. Per contra, Ms. It is urged that the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 was entertained in violation of Rules and Schemes. 5. Per contra, Ms. Anjana Kuraria learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 has submitted that respondent No. 5 has cleared the VIth Semester of B.A. but as the result was declared a few days before the last date of filing of application, the certified copy of final mark sheet/degree was not supplied to her, therefore she filed a copy of her result of VIth Semester, which she had downloaded from the internet along with her application. However, the same was rejected illegally by the committee and 10 bonus marks were wrongly denied to her, stating that she has not filed the mark sheet of her VIth Semester examination. It is urged that she could only file the appeal after she had obtained the certified copy of all the documents filed by her alongwith her application form under RTI, hence the delay was rightly condoned by the authorities. 6. It is seen from the impugned order that the record of the Committee was called and thereafter considering the documents on record, a clear finding has been recorded that the result of VIth Semester of respondent No. 5 was declared a few days before last date of filing of the application form and the certified copy of the final mark sheet/degree was not supplied to her. She had, therefore, filed a copy of her final mark sheet, taken from the internet alongwith her application, but the committee without application of mind, illegally rejected the said and denied her the 10 bonus marks. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said mark sheet is forged or incorrect. In the circumstances, if the District Selection Committee has taken into consideration the copy of the final mark sheet filed by the petitioner alongwith her application form, then respondent No. 5 would be entitled to the 10 bonus marks and her position in the final list would be above the position of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, that though respondent No. 5 was more meritorious, injustice has been caused to her, the appeal of petitioner was dismissed. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, that though respondent No. 5 was more meritorious, injustice has been caused to her, the appeal of petitioner was dismissed. It is also clear from the record that the 15 days delay was caused as respondent No. 5 had applied for certified copy of the documents filed by her alongwith her application form, hence in the interest of justice, the delay was rightly condoned by the appellate authority. 7. In view of the aforestated, the appellate authority has taken a plausible view, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. This petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.