SONAM SIKARWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders, Annexures P-1 and P-3. The petitioner and private respondents submitted their candidature for the post of Aganwadi Worker. By order dated 21.9.2011 the private respondent No.4 was appointed as Aganwadi Worker. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector. The Collector by order dated 21.5.2012 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of respondent No.4 herein. The respondent No.4, in turn, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which was registered as Case No. 140/2011-12 Appeal, which was decided on 19.8.2012. The Commissioner after hearing the parties, restored the order of appointment and set aside the order of the Collector.

(2.) THE singular point on which interference was made by the Commissioner is that the appointing authority has committed no error in appointing respondent No.4 and denying appointment to present petitioner on the ground that present petitioner is not the resident of the village in question where appointment is to be made.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.