Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 991 (MP)

Rakhi Devada v. State of M. P.

2022-08-01

NANDITA DUBEY

body2022
ORDER 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.1.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2/Commissioner, Narmadapuram, whereby the order dated 28.1.2021 passed by the respondent No.3/Additional Collector, Harda has been set aside. 2. The facts as culled out from the petition reveal that initially an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Aaganwadi Worker. The petitioner and the respondent No.7 along with other persons had applied for the said post. After scrutinizing the documents, the respondent No.7 was appointed as Aaganwadi Worker, as she received 50 marks, whereas the petitioner received 47 marks. Thereafter petitioner filed an objection regarding 10 marks, which was wrongly given to the respondent No.7 for the BPL card. According to the petitioner, the BPL card was in the name of father-in-law of the respondent No.7 and his name was deleted by the order dated 26.5.2016, which is also annexed with this petition as Annexure P-6. 3. Relying upon the documents produced by the petitioner, the Additional Collector, Harda set aside the order of appointment of the respondent No.7 and passed a direction to the competent authority to appoint the present petitioner as Aaganwadi Worker overlooking the fact that respondent No.7 was not made a party to the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, Harda, the respondent No.7 preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2/Commissioner and the Commissioner by the impugned order dated 13.1.2022 decided the same on merit, and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Harda relying upon the documents produced by the respondent No.7 before the Commissioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record it reveals that the petitioner had not made the respondent No.7 as party/respondent before the Additional Collector, Harda when he filed an objection before it, and the Additional Collector, Harda without considering the fact that the affected party is not made a party/respondent in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, has allowed the petitioner’s appeal and set aside the order of appointment in favour of the respondent No.7. The respondent No.2/Commissioner has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.7 on merit, and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Harda on the basis of the documents which were not before the Additional Collector, Harda. 6. The respondent No.2/Commissioner has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.7 on merit, and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Harda on the basis of the documents which were not before the Additional Collector, Harda. 6. In my considered opinion, the Additional Collector, Harda has passed the order in absence of respondent No.7, and without considering the said fact the Commissioner has set aside the order of the Additional Collector, hence the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Additional Collector, Harda for a fresh decision. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 13.1.2022 passed by the respondent No.2/Commissioner and the order dated 28.1.2021 passed by the Additional Collector, Harda are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector, Harda to decide the matter a fresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after verifying the documents produced by the parties.