Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 791 (MP)

Radha v. State of M. P.

2020-08-10

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2020
ORDER 1. By this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the notice dated 9.10.2019, whereby opportunity has been provided to the petitioner in respect of her termination. 2. The brief facts are that initially respondent No.6 was appointed as Aanganwadi Karyakarta in Barkheda Centre. Certain complaints were received in respect of her appointment, therefore, the Collector by order dated 30.12.2017 had cancelled the appointment on the issue of the respondent No.6 not being permanent resident of Barkheda. The respondent No.6 had filed WP No.20997/2018 challenging the cancellation of appointment, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 30.8.2019 quashing the order of cancellation of appointment of the respondent No.6 with a direction to the official respondents to continue the respondent No.6 as Aanganwadi Karyakarta. In the meanwhile the petitioner who was at Serial No.2 in the merit list was appointed as Aanganwadi Karyakarta on 25.7.2017, therefore, on the basis of the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition of the respondent No.6, the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner for removal from the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed three years back and in the writ petition filed by the respondent No.6 the petitioner was not impleaded, therefore, she had no opportunity to put forth her case. 4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that if the petitioner has any grievance in respect of the order passed in the writ petition of the respondent No.6, then the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to file a review or to file a writ appeal. He further submits that since the appointment of the petitioner was consequent upon the removal of the respondent No.6, therefore, on the reinstatement of the respondent No.6 the petitioner had to vacate the post. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 also submits that she had duly succeeded in the writ petition and, therefore, in terms of the order of this Court she is entitled for appointment on the post in question. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that undisputedly the appointment of the respondent No.6 was made earlier as Mini Aanganwadi Karyakarta. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that undisputedly the appointment of the respondent No.6 was made earlier as Mini Aanganwadi Karyakarta. Her appointment was cancelled by the Collector but in the Writ Petition No.20997/2018 Smt. Ranglibai v. State of M.P. by order dated 30.8.2019 this Court has found the cancellation of appointment of the respondent No.6 unsustainable and has accordingly held as under:- “In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned orders are bad in law, keeping in view the fact that earlier the petitioner was resident of Village – Umri and her marriage took place on 13.02.2016 with a person of Village – Barkheda and after that she has submitted an application for grant of appointment in respect of Centre – Barkheda and an appointment order was issued on 1.10.2016, meaning thereby, for all purposes, she was the resident of Village – Barkheda, and therefore, impugned order dated 24.7.2017 passed by respondent No.5, impugned order dated 30.12.2017 passed by the Collector and impugned order dated 21.6.2018 passed by the Commissioner affirming the order passed by the Collector are hereby quashed. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed permit the petitioner to continue as Aanganwadi Karyakarta at Centre – Barkheda. The petitioner shall be entitled for the all consequential benefits.” 7. Counsel for the State has pointed out that the aforesaid order has not been challenged any further. The record further reflects that in the appointment order dated 25.7.2017 issued to the petitioner this fact was mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner was on account of disqualification incurred by the respondent No.6. Undisputedly the petitioner was at Serial No.2 in the merit list. 8. Since this Court in WP No.20997/2018 has found that the cancellation of appointment of the respondent No.6 was bad and has accordingly quashed the order of cancellation of appointment and had issued a direction to the official respondents to continue the respondent No.6 as Aanganwadi Karyakarta at Barkheda Centre, therefore, the official respondents have issued the impugned notice to the petitioner. Hence the impugned notice does not suffer from any error. 9. Even otherwise the Principal Seat of this Court in similar circumstances in WP No.16591/2005 decided on 25.9.2012 in the case of D.N. Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. and others has held that:- “8. Hence the impugned notice does not suffer from any error. 9. Even otherwise the Principal Seat of this Court in similar circumstances in WP No.16591/2005 decided on 25.9.2012 in the case of D.N. Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. and others has held that:- “8. At this stage certain objections raised by respondent No.4 may be taken note of, his objection is that as he has been appointed in place of the petitioner therefore, interference be not made. This contention of respondent No.4 cannot be accepted. Respondent No.4 was appointed because the post became vacant after termination of the petitioner's service. A legal right accrues to the respondent No.4 to continue on the post only if termination of the petitioner is found to be in accordance to law. Once the termination is found to be illegal and contrary to law and once it is set aside, respondent No.4 has to make room for the petitioner as the post was originally held by the petitioner and until and unless the post is vacated in accordance with law, respondent No.4 has no right to work on the said post. That being so, objections raised by respondent No.4 cannot be considered and relief granted by this Court to the said respondent.” 10. Having regard to the above factual and legal position, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the respondents in issuing the impugned notice. Hence no case for interference is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed.