Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 644 (MP)

Mangibai v. State of M. P.

2020-05-29

S.C.SHARMA, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Present writ appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 6.12.2018 passed in W.P. No. 23229/2017 (Mangibai w/o Devnarayan Solanki v. State of M.P. and others). 2. The writ petition was preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent/State has issued an advertisement dated 14.10.2015 inviting applications for the post of Mini Aanganwadi worker for village- Devpur, Tahsil-Khilchipur, District-Rajgarh. 4. Present appellant as well as the respondent No. 4 submitted their applications and the present appellant received 51.07 marks and the respondent No. 4 was awarded 50 marks. The respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Collector stating that the present appellant was not having BPL card at the time she submitted the application and, therefore, she is not entitled for 10 marks. 5. The appeal was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 10.5.2016. The present appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner has affirmed the findings arrived by the Collector vide order dated 30.11.2017. 6. Undisputed facts of the case reveal that the present appellant did not submit BPL card while submitting the application for appointment. Before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court, it was contended that she is having BPL ration card and it was issued prior to issuance of advertisement by the respondent. She did submit the same documents relating to BLP card, however, same was not considered by the Collector. 7. Learned Single Judge in paragraphs No. 6 and 7 of W.P. No. 23229/2017 has held as under: "6. In the present petition, an advertisement was issued on 14.10.2015 thereby applications were invited for appointment on the post of Mini Aanganwadi Worker. The petitioner, the respondent No. 4 and other candidates have submitted their applications along with documents for the said post. As per the said advertisement, the petitioner is required to file all the documents along with the application. The documents submitted by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 were duly scrutinized by the competent authority. The petitioner was placed at Sl.No. 1 in the merit list having 51.71 marks and the respondent No. 4 was placed with 50 marks. The documents submitted by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 were duly scrutinized by the competent authority. The petitioner was placed at Sl.No. 1 in the merit list having 51.71 marks and the respondent No. 4 was placed with 50 marks. As the petitioner has awarded highest marks an appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 28.1.2016. Being aggrieved with the said order, the respondent No. 4 has preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector vide order dated 10.5.2016 has allowed the said appeal. Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner has preferred the second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2017. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. The Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner have dismissed the applications on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of 10 marks awarded for having BPL card. In the present case, the petitioner did not file the copy of the BPL card along with the application, which is the mandatory requirement at the time of submission of the application and, therefore, the scrutiny committee has wrongly awarded 10 marks to the petitioner for BPL card. The record which clearly shows that, the petitioner applied for BPL card on 13.1.2016 along with an affidavit. According to the said application, her name has been recorded in the BPL card on 19.1.2016. The applications have been invited up to 14.10.2015, but till that date, the petitioner was not having BPL rashan card and therefore, the scrutiny committee has wrongly awarded the benefit of 10 marks to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division,Bhopal. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 8. In the present case, the policy dated 10.7.2007 is applicable in the matter of appointment and the policy provides for grant of marks under various heads. For BPL card holder, 10 marks are awarded and undisputed facts reveal that while submitting an application, the petitioner/present appellant did not submit the BPL card, which was a mandatory requirement and therefore, the Collector and the Additional Commissioner were justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled for 10 additional marks. 9. For BPL card holder, 10 marks are awarded and undisputed facts reveal that while submitting an application, the petitioner/present appellant did not submit the BPL card, which was a mandatory requirement and therefore, the Collector and the Additional Commissioner were justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled for 10 additional marks. 9. The record also reflects that the present appellant applied for BPL card on 13.1.2016 along with an affidavit and the card was issued on 19.1.2016 whereas the application for appointment was submitted on 14.10.2015 and, therefore, as on the date of submission of the application, BPL card was not submitted as it was issued only on 19.1.2016, hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. 10. Resultantly, this Court also does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the admission is declined.