Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1277 (MP)

Asha Kushwah v. State of M. P.

2020-12-17

ANAND PATHAK

body2020
ORDER 1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution being aggrieved by action of the respondents whereby despite being successful twice in the selection process, appointment order has not been issued on the post of Aaganwadi Worker. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that as per the policy dated 10.7.2007 (Annexure P/2) Department of Women and Child Development, State of M.P., issued an advertisement on 13th August, 2007 inviting applications for Aaganwadi Worker for different Gram Panchayats. Petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Aaganwadi Worker at Gram Panchayat, Banjarpura and she stood successful by obtaining 36.5 marks and provisional list dated 22.8.2007 (Annexure P/4) indicates so. Later on, instead of proceeding with issuance of appointment order, another advertisement was issued vide notification dated 22.9.2007 (Annexure P/5). Petitioner did not challenge the said advertisement, but participated into it and again scored 36.5 marks in the provisional list vide Annexure P/6, but it appears that after included in the provisional list, her claim was rejected on the ground that some overwriting found in ration card of the petitioner and in her place, one Jyoti Sharma was declared to be selected. This gave occasion to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Collector, Distt. Gwalior, and Collector vide order dated 22.4.2008 (Annexure P/9) allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and set aside the appointment of said Jyoti Sharma. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Collector ought to have directed for appointment of petitioner on the said post in place of Jyoti Sharma, but due to said omission, petitioner did not get appointment and respondents scrutinized the matter afresh and found the petitioner as eligible candidate and same is reflected from the provisional list prepared by the respondents on 5.7.2008 (Annexure P/10). In this provisional list, petitioner again stood as successful candidate, but ignoring the said process, it appears that Office of District Programme Officer, Child and Women Development Department, again issued advertisement in 2008 vide Annexure P/1 which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. In this provisional list, petitioner again stood as successful candidate, but ignoring the said process, it appears that Office of District Programme Officer, Child and Women Development Department, again issued advertisement in 2008 vide Annexure P/1 which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. On 23.1.2009 this Court stayed the appointment process so far as Aaganwadi Center, Banjarpura is concerned, but respondents again issued a notification for filling up the vacancies vide Annexure P/11, and therefore, petitioner had to move another application for stay and to challenge the said notification dated 31.3.2010 and this Court again stayed the proceedings. Since then, matter is pending consideration. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when petitioner was selected by the valid selection process by the competent authority, then intermittent shifting of stand smacks malafide and valuable right of consideration for selection to the post of Aaganwadi Worker of petitioner is violated. She is otherwise qualified which is reflected from different selection proceedings. According to learned counsel, the act of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner denied foul-play, if any because the petitioner has shown her merit time and again. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and on the basis of reply submits that just because the petitioner was placed next to respondent No.4 and her appointment was cancelled being against the rules, same does not accrue any right automatically in favour of the petitioner since procedure was found to be vitiated, and therefore, fresh advertisement has been issued. He prayed for dismissal of the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. This is a case where petitioner is fighting for last almost 12 years for the post of Aaganwadi Worker. Twice she was selected by the competent authority. Earlier vide order dated 22.8.2007 (Annexure P/4) she was found to be eligible, but this process was eclipsed by issuance of another advertisement dated 22.9.2007 (Annexure P/5). Gracefully enough, she again appeared in the appointment process instead of challenging her claim on the basis of inclusion of name in the provisional list (Annexure P/4). She participated in the fresh selection process and again she stood successful vide provisional list Annexure P-6. In final list, her name was removed on the alleged pretext of overwriting in ration card. Gracefully enough, she again appeared in the appointment process instead of challenging her claim on the basis of inclusion of name in the provisional list (Annexure P/4). She participated in the fresh selection process and again she stood successful vide provisional list Annexure P-6. In final list, her name was removed on the alleged pretext of overwriting in ration card. Although ration card is not the only document required for ascertaining the status of a candidate, but still Collector rightly pointed out that if any anomaly existed, then it was the duty of the authority to get it verified while asking for production of original document and only on the basis of overwriting in photocopy of a document, candidature could not have been rejected. The said order dated 22.4.2008 attained finality because nobody challenged the same to higher authorities. 8. It further appears that after passing of the order dated 22.4.2008 authorities re-scrutinized the matter and vide proceedings dated 5.7.2008 (Annexure P/10) her name was found to be suitable for appointment on the post of Aaganwadi Worker. It is worth mentioning the fact that a note was appended on the said provisional list inviting objections from any concerned person between 10.7.2008 to 17.7.2008. From the record, it cannot be gathered that any objection was raised by any candidate or otherwise against the candidature of present petitioner. Therefore, it can be assumed in absence of any cogent evidence or material available on record that no objection was received by the authorities. Still they proceeded with fresh advertisement vide Annexure P/1 and later on vide Annexure P/11, and therefore, both the advertisements were issued in arbitrary manner and amount to colourable exercise of power wherein authorities deliberately shown to be ignorant about their own decisions taken earlier. When Collector has passed the order dated 22.4.2008 and thereafter selection committee issued provisional list, then there was no occasion for the same respondents to issue fresh advertisement. 9. In the domain of public employment, selection process ought to be transparent and at the same time ought not to be oppressive for a candidate to wait for his or her turn to get appointment after a decade or so. 9. In the domain of public employment, selection process ought to be transparent and at the same time ought not to be oppressive for a candidate to wait for his or her turn to get appointment after a decade or so. It is the duty of model employer like State Government to give appointment to the eligible and available meritorious candidates at the earliest so that they may have incentive to serve public in meaningful manner with enthusiasm. 10. Considering the overall fact situation of the case and documents appended with the petition, this Court comes to the conclusion that arbitrariness has been caused in the selection process while resorting to one remedy or the other and in that process, valuable right of consideration of petitioner has been infringed and even public of concerned village also suffered because of some ad hoc arrangement which might be prevailing so far. Therefore, impugned notification dated 25.9.2008, Annexure P/1, and 31.3.2010, Annexure P/11, stand quashed and provisional list dated 5.7.2008, Annexure P/10, stands revived and resurrected. Respondents shall consider the claim of petitioner in the light of provisional list and issue appropriate appointment order in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Looking to the decade old litigation, it is expected that respondents shall take the matter earnestly and would not compel the petitioner to come again in litigation for enforcement of this order. Petition stands allowed and disposed of. D.S. Raghuwanshi for petitioner; Vishal Tripathi; Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3/State.