Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 646 (MP)

Shakuntala (Smt. ) v. State of M. P.

2025-11-03

AMIT SETH

body2025
ORDER 1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2.2.2021 passed by the Collector, Bhind, whereby, while partly allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the appointment of the respondent No.5 as Aganwadi Worker/Karyakarta, Aganwadi Kendra Mahadevpura Village Enthaar, District Bhind, the matter has been remitted to the Project Officer for the appointment of the most meritorious candidates from the select list. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 13.8.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent No.5 against the aforesaid order of the Collector has been allowed and the order dated 2.2.2021 has been set aside. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as under:- 3.1 The process for appointment of the Anganwadi Sahaiyka for the Aganwadi Centre in question was initiated vide advertisement dated 21.8.2021. The last date for submission of the application was 5.9.2018. On the basis of the scrutiny of the applications received, the provisional select list was prepared wherein, the petitioner was shown to have obtained 49.30 marks whereas, the respondent No.5 was shown to have obtained 67.30 marks and was placed at Serial No.1. Subsequently, a corrigendum to the select list came to be issued wherein, the petitioner was shown to have obtained 59.03 marks. Since the respondent No.5 was at Srl. No. 1 in the select list, she was appointed vide order dated 14.7.2020. 3.2 The appointment of the respondent No.5 was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the Collector on the ground that the respondent No.5 has been wrongly granted 10 marks for her belonging to the BPL category, as the name of the husband of the respondent No.5 was not reflected in the BPL list and the name of her brother-in-law (Jeth) namely Ganga Singh was reflected in the BPL list. The challenge to the appointment of the respondent No.5 was also made by the petitioner on the ground that she has been wrongly granted 10 marks for being a graduate, as according to the petitioner, the final result of the respondent No.5 declaring her to be graduate was issued on 22.9.2018 i.e. after the cut-off date (last date for submission of application for dated i.e. 5.9.2018). 3.3 The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be partly allowed by the Collector vide order dated 2.2.2021 wherein, the objections to the grant of 10 marks to the respondent No.5 for being a BPL candidate was upheld. The BPL marks granted to the respondent No.5 were deducted and her total marks were ascertained at 57.30 and thereafter the matter was remitted to the Project Officer for issuance of the appointment order for the most meritorious candidate from the select list. 3.4 The aforesaid order dated 2.2.2021 was thereafter challenged by the respondent No.5 in a second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, which came to be allowed vide order dated 13.8.2021 and the appointment of the respondent No.5 has been affirmed. It is these two orders which are under challenge in the instant writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the name of the husband of the respondent No.5 was not mentioned in the BPL list, she was wrongly granted the 10 additional marks which were rightly deducted by the Collector. He further submits that the Commissioner in the second appeal, without adverting to the said aspect had erroneously allowed the second appeal preferred by the respondent No.5. He further submits that once the final result of the respondent No.5 for graduation has been declared on 22.9.2018 i.e. after the cut-off date, she was not entitled for grant of 10 additional marks on the said count and accordingly, he prays for quashment of the orders impugned in the instant writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the Collector had erred in deducting the 10 marks awarded to her for she belonging to the BPL category. He submits that the BPL list which has been filed along with the petition is a manipulated document. By referring to the document Annexure R/5, particularly entry No.187, he submits that the name of the husband of the respondent No.5 is Karan Singh and his name is duly reflected in the BPL list. The said aspect has been duly considered by the Commissioner while upholding the 10 marks awarded to the respondent No.5 for she belonging to the BPL category. The said aspect has been duly considered by the Commissioner while upholding the 10 marks awarded to the respondent No.5 for she belonging to the BPL category. He further submits that in fact in the second appeal, the Commissioner had taken note of the fact that the respondent No.5 had earlier worked as Aganwadi Sahayika at Gwalior and for which, she was entitled for grant of 10 additional marks, which were not awarded by the selection committee and accordingly, the respondent No.5 was rightly held to be the most meritorious candidate and her appointment was rightly affirmed. 6. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The document Annexure R/5/1 placed on record by the respondent No.5 containing the BPL list and at entry No.187, duly reflecting the name of the husband of the respondent No.5 (Karan Singh) and the pleadings in the return filed by the respondent No.5 alleging fraud on part of the petitioner in filing manipulated BPL list have not been disputed by the petitioner by way of filing any rejoinder. In view whereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Commissioner had rightly concluded to uphold the grant of 10 marks to the respondent No.5 for she belonging to the BPL category. 9. That apart, the Commissioner had found the respondent No.5 also entitled for grant of 10 marks for her previous experience for having been worked as Aganwadi Karyakarta at Aganwadi Centre, Gwalior, which factual aspect has also not been controverted by the petitioner by placing on record any documentary evidence to the contrary. 10. Thus, the respondent No.5 by grant of 10 marks for belonging to BPL category is having 67.30 marks in total whereas the total marks secured by the petitioner are 59.30 and therefore she being most meritorious was rightly appointed on the post in question. 10. Thus, the respondent No.5 by grant of 10 marks for belonging to BPL category is having 67.30 marks in total whereas the total marks secured by the petitioner are 59.30 and therefore she being most meritorious was rightly appointed on the post in question. It is noteworthy that though the counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that his objection regarding the respondent No.5 having not completed graduation before the cuf-off date was not considered by the Collector while passing the order dated 2.2.2021 but the facts remains that the petitioner accepted the said order and did not challenged the same further in second appeal and it is only when the second appeal preferred by the respondent No.5 against the said order dated 2.2.2021 was allowed, the petitioner by way of afterthought has challenged the order of Collector also in the petition and therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the said plea of the petitioner at this stage. 11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the findings recorded by the Commissioner with regard to the entitlement of the respondent No. 5 for grant of marks under the BPL category and marks for her previous experience as Anganwadi Karyakarta, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference in the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner. The contention of the respondent No.5 regarding filing of manipulated BPL list by the petitioner being un-rebutted by the petitioner, no ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No order as to cost. 12. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of.