Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 95 (MP)

REETA w/o LOKENDRA v. STATE OF M. P.

2019-01-29

VIVEK RUSIA

body2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri K. K. Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned GA for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State. None for the respondent No. 5, though served. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 13-2-2018, passed by the Commissioner, Indore by which entire selection to the post of Aanganwadi Worker in Aanganwadi Center, Lendipura has been set aside. In compliance of the aforesaid order, vide order dated 28-2-2018, the appointment of the petitioner as Aanganwadi Worker has also been set aside. 2. Facts of the case are as under : The Project Officer, ICDS issued an advertisement for appointment of Aanganwadi workers for Aanganwadi Center, Lendipur, Panchayat Mukundpura. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 along with other candidates applied for the said post. By order dated 14-8-2017, the petitioner was appointed as an Aanganwadi worker. The aforesaid appointment was objected by the respondent No. 5 by filing appeal before the Collector. By order dated 24-10-2017, the Collector has dismissed the appeal by holding that the respondent No. 5 though secured more marks then petitioner, but she is not resident of Gram Lendipura and the petitioner being a next candidate securing maximum marks has rightly been appointed. Being aggrieved by the order of Collector dated 24-10-2017, the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. By order dated 13-2-2018, Commissioner has found that the report of Tehsildar is not proper in respect of residence of the respondent in order to decide the domicile of the respondent No. 5, hence, the entire selection is liable to be set aside and directed for fresh selection. In compliance of the aforesaid order, vide order dated 28-2-2018, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled, hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per advertisement the candidate must be a resident of the place where the center is situated. The respondent No. 5 is not having documents in relation to establish her residence at Gram Lendipura. Virtually, she is resident of Maharashtra and after marriage resident of Barwani which is evident from Adhar Card, Identity Card etc. 4. After inviting applications, tentative selection list was prepared in which the name of respondent No. 5 was placed at Serial No. 4 with the noting that she is not resident of the concerned village though she has secured 47.56 marks. 4. After inviting applications, tentative selection list was prepared in which the name of respondent No. 5 was placed at Serial No. 4 with the noting that she is not resident of the concerned village though she has secured 47.56 marks. The Project Officer directed the Tehsildar to submit a report. The Tehsildar vide report dated 8-6-2017 has mentioned that respondent No. 5 is resident of Maharashtra. Thereafter, the Project Officer has submitted this report dated 27-6-2017 that the respondent No. 5 is having following documents in respect of her residence : 5. He stated that she is not resident of Gram Lendipura, hence, she cannot be appointed on the said post. The said report has been placed reliance by the Collector and dismissed the appeal. 6. That the Commissioner has not recorded any finding that respondent No. 5 is resident of Lendipur and instead of upholding the appointment of the petitioner, has wrongly set aside the entire selection. From the report submitted by the Project Officer, it is clear that respondent No. 5 is having Adhar Card of District Barwani, Nirwachan Kard of Gram Mukundpura, Rashan Card and Samgra ID of District Barwani. Even the Tehsildar, Thikri, District Barwani issued a resident certificate. She is not having any document in respect of her resident at Gram Lendipur where the center is situated, hence, the order of Commissioner as well as Annexure P/11 both are set aside. The appointment of the petitioner is hereby upheld. Petition is allowed. CC as per rules.