TARNI SHUKLA Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER SHAHDOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 06/06/19 contained in Annexure P/15 passed by respondent no.1, Additional Commissioner Shahdol, (MP.). Petitioner is aggrieved by the order as her appeal against the order of Collector was dismissed by Additional Commissioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued for appointment of Aanganwadi Worker at in Center Tilli Dongari (Kua), Tehsil Beohari District Shahdol. Last date for submission of application forms was 27/10/16. Petitioner had submitted her application form on 24/10/16.

(3.) It is averred by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that after submission of application form, but before cut-off date petitioner has submitted her experience certificate as Didi on 26/10/16. As experience certificate has been filed by the petitioner before the closing date, i.e. on 27/10/16 therefore, her experience certificate ought to have been considered and Collector as well as Commissioner has committed an error of law in not considering her experience certificate and depriving her of 4 marks. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that after publication of Provisional list an objection was raised by the petitioner before the scrutiny committee that she has not been awarded marks for her experience. Scrutiny committee considered the objections and granted four (4) marks to the petitioner. Due to grant of four (4) marks petitioner secured 67.22 marks and she was kept at serial number one in the list. Smt. Maya Prajapati who was at Serial no.1 in the provisional select list and who had secured 65.40 marks, preferred an appeal before Collector. Collector allowed the appeal on the ground that experience certificate of petitioner cannot be considered at the time of filing of objections. Similar view has been taken by Additional Commissioner while deciding the appeal. It has been held by both the authorities that experience certificate was filed by the petitioner at the time of filing of objections and therefore, the same cannot be considered.