RACHNA DIXIT Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure P/2) and the appellate order (Annexure P/1) dated 22.6.2010.

(2.) SO far factual backdrop is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. The learned counsel for the parties while arguing agreed that singular question needs to be decided is whether preference given to respondent No.5 being a widow was in accordance with law or not. To elaborate, it is not in dispute that minimum qualification for the post of Aganwadi Worker is higher secondary/Inter and the petitioner and respondent No.5 are having said minimum qualification. The respondents have chosen to give preference to respondent No.5 by giving her preference as per clause B-2.

(3.) PER contra, learned Govt. Advocate relied on the note-sheet Annexure R/1 and stated that Annexure P/2 is passed in consonance and in obedience of Annexure R/1. She submits that being a widow, respondent No.5 was rightly given preference despite the fact that on merit she is below the present petitioner.