MADHU MORYA Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 16/04/2013 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.406/2011-12/Appeal, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate and an advertisement was issued for appointment of Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 participated in the said recruitment process and by order dated 12/06/2017, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Centre, Ward No.14/11, Bhitarwar, District Gwalior. The appointment of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No.5 before the Additional Collector, Gwalior. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the policy for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker, dated 27/05/2006 was in force, according to which the minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Worker was Higher Secondary/Inter pass. It was also provided that the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, living Below the Poverty Line, as well as Widow/ Deserted, Spinster of 30 years or more and other women would be given preference. However, thereafter on 10/07/2007, a new policy was formulated and it was provided that the marks would be awarded as per the percentage obtained in respective examinations. It is submitted that thereafter, the Additional Collector, District Gwalior by order dated 29/06/2009 passed in Case No.35/2008-09/Appeal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.5 on the basis of the guidelines dated 10/07/2007 and remanded the matter back. It was observed by Additional Collector that the recommendation was made for appointment of the respondent no.5 on the basis that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and is living Below the Poverty Line and is running a Shishu Sikshya Kendra. It was also mentioned that the name of the respondent no.5 was mentioned in the panel of names which was recommended by the Councillor. It was also observed that although the name of the petitioner was not in the panel of names recommended by the Councillor, but on the basis that she is a spinster, aged about 30 years, she was appointed. It was further observed that although the name of the respondent No.5 was recommended but by ignoring the said recommendation, the petitioner was granted appointment. It was also observed that although the counsel for the petitioner had raised an objection that the appeal filed by the respondent no.5 is barred by limitation but the said objection was rejected on the ground that the objection with regard to delay in filing the appeal should have been raised at the earliest but it was not done, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be decided. Accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the competent authority to consider the application for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Centre, Ward No.14/11, Bhitarwar, District Gwalior.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, the petitioner preferred a revision which was registered as Case No.207/2008-09/Revision, but the said revision was dismissed by order dated 22nd March, 2009 by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior. While dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior considered the marks obtained by the candidates in Higher Secondary/Inter Examination. Thereafter, by order dated 11/05/2010, the Project Officer, Integrated Child Welfare Development Project, Bhitarwar, District Gwalior, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and by another order dated 11/05/2010, appointed the respondent No.5 on the post of Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Centre, Ward No. 14/11, Bhitarwar, District Gwalior.