SATYA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute between the petitioner and private respondent No.4 is in respect of appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker in Gram Panchayat, Dhanha. Gram Panchayat had issued an advertisement for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center. 9 applications were received and, thereafter, preliminary and final list was prepared. In final list, respondent No.4 was selected to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker. Petitioner has challenged the final select list before Collector by filing an appeal. Collector considered the appeal of petitioner and allowed the same vide its order dated 04.02.2013. Collector found the BPL status of respondent No.4 suspicious. Collector has made an observation that BPL card was tempered with and name of respondent No.4 and other persons were entered in BPL card with a different handwriting. There was also cutting in the BPL card and, therefore, Collector held that BPL card is suspicious. However, no findings was given by the Collector whether BPL card of respondent No.4 is forged or not. Collector assumed that even if 10 marks of BPL is given to respondent No.4 then petitioner as well as respondent No.4 will receive equal marks i.e. 48. As per memorandum of State Government dated 10.07.2007, the women who is older is to be given preference. Appellant was older than respondent No.4, therefore, Collector decided the case in the favour of the appellant and allowed the appeal.

(2.) The order of Collector was challenged in second appeal before the Commissioner, District Sidhi. Commissioner held that petitioner has got 302 marks in Class-12th out of 450 and respondent No.4 got 304 marks out of 450 and, therefore, as respondent No.4 was having more marks, therefore, on merits respondent No.4 ought to have been appointed as Anganwadi Worker. It was also held by the Commissioner that respondent No.4 was living along with his father-in-law/Amar Bahadur in joint family and therefore she is also entitled for 10 marks.

(3.) On the basis of aforesaid findings, the appeal filed by respondent No.4 was allowed and order passed by Collector dated 04.02.2013 was set aside. In this writ petition order passed by Commissioner is under challenged.