SAVITRI SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india challenging the order dated 17-8-2000 (Annexure P-8) of the Commissioner, Rewa by which he has set aside the order dated 15-5-2000 of the collector and cancelled the appointment of the petitioner to the post of aangan Wadi Worker in Village Dadari.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that petitioner Savitri Singh was appointed as aangan Wadi Worker by order dated 31-12-1998 in Village Dadari. She is resident of Village Bharhut. This appointment was made on the recommendation of Janpad Panchayat, Uchehara. Gram Panchayat, Bharhut comes under this Janpad Panchayat and Village Dadari is within Gram Panchayat, bharhut. The petitioner is a widow. Respondent No. 8 Smt. Kanta Devi alias gayatri filed an appeal before the Collector under Section 91 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act')challenging the appointment of the petitioner. This appeal has been rejected by the Collector. He took the view that the petitioner is a widow and resident of Village Bharhut and, therefore, she has been validly appointed as Aangan wadi Worker in Village Dadari which comes under Gram Panchayat, Bharhut. Respondent No. 8 further challenged this order before the Commissioner, rewa by filing a revision under Section 91 of the Act. The Commissioner has set aside the order of the Collector and also appointment of the petitioner on the ground that as per circular dated 27-5-1996 of the State Government a person resident of the same village could be appointed as Aangan Wadi worker.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the Commissioner, Rewa, on the basis of the circular of the State Government, is illegal. Recently in Kailash Chand sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 2877, it has been held by the supreme Court that residence within a District or Rural areas of that District could not be a valid basis for classification for the purpose of public employment. The argument in favour of such reservation which has the overtones of parochialism is liable to be rejected on the plain terms of Art. 16 (2) and in the light of Art. 16 (3 ). An argument of this nature lies in the face of the peremptory language of Article 16 (2) and runs counter to our constitutional ethos founded on unity and integrity of the nation. Residence by itself - be it be within a State, region, District or lesser area within a District - can not be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation save as provided in art. 16 (3 ). It is not possible to compartmentalise the State into Districts with a view to offer employment to the residents of that District on a preferential basis.