JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, J. - This Appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against order dated 05.03.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.1755/2011. 2. The Writ Petition at the instance of appellant was directed against the order dated 20.01.2011 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa. 3. The controversy relates to the appointment of Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Centre Lohadwar, Tehsil Raipurkarchuliyan, District Rewa. 4. That applications for the said appointment were invited in August 2009. The last date for submitting the applications was 17.08.2009 from incumbents possessing the following qualifications: 5. Besides appellant and respondent No.6, 14 more applicants applied for the post. Respective applications were scrutinized by the Selection Committee, whereon, one Smt. Pramila Pandey was found eligible for appointment as Anganwadi Worker; whereagainst, objection was filed by the present appellant. Considering the same, respondent No.6Smt. Sita Devi was found eligible, accordingly, was appointed as Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Centre Lohadwar, Tehsil Raipurkarchuliyan, District Rewa. Her appointment was challenged by present appellant before Collector, Rewa on the ground that respondent No.6 i.e. Smt. Sita Devi is a married woman residing at her matrimonial home at Kanji, Tehsil Sirmour, District Rewa. Being a permanent resident of Kanji, Sirmour, she was not eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre Lohadwar, Tehsil Raipurkarchuliyan, District Rewa. 6. The objection raised by the appellant found favour with the Collector who by his order dated 18.10.2010 set-aside the order dated 17.02.2010. The Collector found : 7. Consequently, while setting aside the appointment of respondent No.6-Smt. Sita Devi, the matter was remitted to the Project OfficerIntegrated Women and Child Development Department, Raipurkarchuliyan, District Rewa to prepare fresh list on the basis of applications received in accordance with the policy of the State. Consequent whereof, the present appellant was appointed as Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Centre Lohadwar, Tehsil Raipurkarchuliyan, District Rewa by order dated 25.10.2010. 8. That, respondent No.6 challenged the order passed by the Collector before Commissioner questioning its validity on the ground that the Collector has glossed over the facets of the case. It was stated that Collector erred in not taking into consideration the voter list of respective villages, bonafide resident certificate issued by Tehsildar and BPL Card held by her husband. 9. That, respondent No.6 challenged the order passed by the Collector before Commissioner questioning its validity on the ground that the Collector has glossed over the facets of the case. It was stated that Collector erred in not taking into consideration the voter list of respective villages, bonafide resident certificate issued by Tehsildar and BPL Card held by her husband. 9. The Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa by his order dated 20.01.2011 set-aside the order passed by the Collector and restored the appointment of respondent No.6 on the following findings: 10. That the present appellant questioned the correctness of the said order before learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge in seisen with the sole controversy as regard to residential status of respondent No.6 upheld the view taken by the Additional Commissioner. Learned Single Judge found: 'The only question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether respondent No.6 Smt.Sita Devi is resident of Gram Panchayat Lohadwar of Tahsil Raipurkarchulian or of the village Kanji of Janpad Panchayat Sirmour. As per the policy of the State Government dated 10.7.2007, the ration card, the current Voter list and the current B.P.L list are the documents, which are to be considered as proof of the residence. The final list was prepared on 17.2.2010, therefore, for the proof of residence, the current voter list of the year 2009-10 is to be taken into consideration for deciding the place of residence of respondent No.6. If the said documents are not available only then the certificate issued by the Tahsildar can be considered for deciding the residence. The Collector by passing the impugned order has considered the voter list of the year 2009 in which the names of Kamlesh Kumar and Smt.Sita Devi have been shown at Serial Nos.1683 & 1684 in house of 12/2/kha and 12/2/kha and also considered the voter list of the year 2004 and the name is at Serial No.213. The voter list of the year 2004 is not relevant and the same could not have been considered. However, the voter list of the year 2009 which has been considered is relevant and in that voter list the name of the respondent No.6 Smt.Sita Devi is shown to be resident of Khadda of Vikaskhand Sirmour. The voter list of the year 2004 is not relevant and the same could not have been considered. However, the voter list of the year 2009 which has been considered is relevant and in that voter list the name of the respondent No.6 Smt.Sita Devi is shown to be resident of Khadda of Vikaskhand Sirmour. In the appeal before the Collector, the respondents had relied upon the certificate of the Tahsildar for residence and it was submitted that his name from voter list of Kanji has been deleted and the name has been included in the voter list of Gram Panchayat Lohadwar of Tahsil Raipurkarchulian, District Rewa. The respondents had filed a voter list of Gram Panchayat Lohadwar of Tahsil Raipurkarchulian, District Rewa of the year 2004 in Ward No.14, the name of respondent No.6 Smt.Sita Devi is reflected. The voter list is of the year 2004, therefore, the same cannot be considered as per the policy of the State Government current voter list i.e. on the date of consideration of the application is to be considered. The name of respondent No.6 Smt.Sita Devi was deleted from the voter list in the year 2008. Another voter list has been filed of the year 2010 and it was dated 1.1.2010 in which the name of respondent No.6 Smt.Sita Devi is shown at Serial No.729 as resident of Gram Panchayat Lohadwar of Tahsil Raipurkarchulian, District Rewa. In the year 2009, the name of respondent No.6 Smt.Sita Devi has been deleted from the voter list of Khadda of Janpad Panchayat Sirmour. As the current voter list of the year 2010 is available on record and as per the current voter list of the year 2010, the name of respondent No.6 Smt.Sita Devi is included in the voter list of Gram Panchayat Lohadwar of Tahsil Raipurkarchulian, District Rewa, therefore, the said document could be relied upon as per the policy of the State Government. The Collector has committed an error of law in not considering the current voter list and relied upon the voter list of the previous year i.e. of the year 2004. The Commissioner has also committed an error of law in relying on the affidavits which were not parts of record. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The Commissioner has also committed an error of law in relying on the affidavits which were not parts of record. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. It is held that the respondent No.6 Smt.Sita Devi is resident of Gram Panchayat Lohadwar of Tahsil Raipurkarchulian, District Rewa as per the current voter list, which is the document of proof of the residence as per the policy of the State Government dated 10.7.2007. The matter is sent back to the respondent No.4-Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme Raipurkarchulian and respondent No.5-District Program Officer, Women & Child Development, Rewa to pass appointment order in favour of respondent No.6 Smt. Sita Devi." 11. After hearing respective parties, the only question as was formulated by the learned Single Judge is as to whether respondent No.6 on the date when the application for appointment was filed i.e. before 17.08.2009 was a resident of Lohadwar as would entitle her for appointment as Anganwadi Worker. 12. One of the criteria laid down in the Policy for being eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker is that the incumbent must be permanent resident of village/Urban Ward having her name in the Voter List/BPL List (in case of married woman, the name of her husband in the BPL list). In absence of these 2 credentials, a certificate of bonafide resident issued by Sub-Divisional Officer/Tehsildar. 13. In the case at hand, reliance is placed by the respondent No.6 on the Voter List of 2004 and 2010; bonafide resident certificate which was issued on 07.03.2007 and BPL Card which though was issued on 12.08.2009 but on the basis of survey list of 2002-2003. 14. The requirement of the policy was that the name of incumbent must be in the voter list in a close proximity of the last date of filing the application. In the instant case the voter list of 2009 will be relevant. 15. In the case at hand, the voter list of Gram Panchayat Khadda issued in the year 2009 was filed by the present appellant to establish that respondent No.6 was recorded as voter in village Khadda and not village Lohadwar. In the instant case the voter list of 2009 will be relevant. 15. In the case at hand, the voter list of Gram Panchayat Khadda issued in the year 2009 was filed by the present appellant to establish that respondent No.6 was recorded as voter in village Khadda and not village Lohadwar. The extract whereof was brought on record in Writ Petition as Annexure P/5 and is presently at page 64 and 65 of the compilation, wherefrom, it is seen that the name of respondent No.6 and her husband is at serial No.1683 and 1684:12/2/[k in Gram Panchayat Khadda. 16. Though a cavil is raised on behalf of respondent No.6 on the basis of voter list at pages No.123 to 132 of the compilation, however, it is found that the list at page 123 is that of 2008 relating to Assembly Elections of village Lohadwar where the name of respondent No.6 and her husband is at serial No.215 and 218 is found deleted which has been shown to be restored in the Assembly Election which is evident from the extract at page 124. The said inclusion, however, is of no assistance to the respondent No.6 as the list relates to Legislative Assembly Election of 2008. A reference to the extract at page No.125 is also of no assistance because a supplementary list of Gram Panchayat Khadda, Block Sirmour issued in the year 2009 which is brought at page 128 and 129 of the compilation establishes that the name of respondent No.6 was shown to be deleted from Village Kanji, Tehsil Sirmour, Rewa District. For ready reference it is extracted below: 3 foyksiu ewy lwph dk 1 okMZ 2 Xzke 3 x`g - ;fn gk 4 ernkrk dk uke 5 firk@ifr dk uke 6 iq:"k@efgyk 7 vk;q 8 1684 17 dath 12@2[k lhrknoh deysk dqekj e- 27 17. Furthermore, the reliance placed on the list of Assembly Elections of 2010, in our considered opinion, is of no relevance because the last dated for applying to the post was 17.08.2009. 18. Furthermore, the reliance placed on the list of Assembly Elections of 2010, in our considered opinion, is of no relevance because the last dated for applying to the post was 17.08.2009. 18. The respondent No.6 has further relied on the Niwas Praman Patra (Bonafide Resident Certificate) issued by Tehsildar, Raipurkarchuliyan, District Rewa, the certificate, as evident therefrom has been issued on 07.03.2007, whereby, respondent No.6 is shown to be a resident of village Lohadwar, however, with the change of resident of respondent No.6, as is evident from the voter list, the said certificate issued on 07.03.2007 will be of no assistance to respondent No.6. Further reliance is placed by respondent No.6 on BPL Card which though is issued on 12.08.2009, filed by respondent No.6 as Annexure R/6-2, presently brought on record at page 116 of the compilation reveals that it has been issued on the basis of the survey list 2002-2003 which also, in our considered opinion, will be of no assistance to respondent No.6. It is further borne out from record that the Project Officer after receiving objection had taken recourse to an inquiry by Tehsildar Raipurkarchuliyan, District Rewa. 19. As regard to the residential status of respondent No.6, a report was submitted to the Project Officer on 12.03.2010 which is prepared by Tehsildar, Raipurkarchuliyan, District Rewa after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.6 as well as the present appellant. The report is reproduced in its entirety which establishes that respondent No.6, on the date when she filed application for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker, was not the resident of village Lohadwar. 20. Though Additional Commissioner has discarded the said inquiry report on the ground that one of the person who filed an affidavit had later expressed that it was not his signature, in our considered opinion, the said observation will not cause any dent to the finding which has been recorded by Tehsildar who caused the detailed inquiry and afforded opportunity of hearing to respective parties, before coming to the conclusion that respondent No.6 at the relevant time was not the resident of village Lohadwar. 21. When the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner and its affirmation by learned Single Judge is tested on the anvil of above analysis, the same cannot be given the stamp of approval. 22. 21. When the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner and its affirmation by learned Single Judge is tested on the anvil of above analysis, the same cannot be given the stamp of approval. 22. Consequently, while quashing the order dated 20.01.2011 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, we setaside the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. No.1755/2011 and restore the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the Collector, Rewa. We also upheld the order dated 25.10.2010; whereby the present appellant was appointed as Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Centre Lohadwar, Tehsil Raipurkarchuliyan, District Rewa. 23. The appeal is disposed of finally in above terms. No costs.