ARTI UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 07.01.2012 (Annexure p-1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa as also the order dated 27.01.2012 (Annexure P-14).

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this petition in short are that in terms of the scheme made by the State Government, an advertisement was issued for appointment of Aaganwadi worker in Aaganwadi Center, Dadar, Gram Panchayat, Badhaiya, Block Hanumuna, District Rewa. The respondent No. 6 was one of the candidates along with one Smt. Archana Tiwari and Smt. Mamta Kol. After making selection, a merit list was prepared by the programme officer, Woman & Child Development, Rewa in which the name of Smt. Archana Tiwari was at S. No.1, the name of Smt. Mamta Kol was at S. No.2 and the name of respondent No.6 was at S.No.

(3.) The selection was made strictly on merits. Consequently, an order of appointment was issued in respect of Smt. Archana Tiwari on 04.10.2007. The said Smt. Archana Tiwari joined on the post on 15.10.2007. However, when an inspection of the Aaganwadi was made, it was found that Smt. Archana Tiwari was not present in the Aaganwadi and a report in this respect was made. A show cause was issued to said Smt. Archana Tiwari by the competent authority but the same was not replied. Again opportunities were granted on several occasions and ultimately a reply was submitted by Smt. Archana Tiwari on 01.02.2008. The competent authority, the project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Hanumuna, District Rewa, conducted the inspection of Aaganwadi on 11.03.2008 and again found that Smt. Archana Tiwari was absent from duty. Again explanation was called from said Smt. Archana Tiwari. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted and it was found that Smt. Archana Tiwari was not attending the Aaganwadi regularly. The honorarium was also not paid to Smt. Archana Tiwari because of her absence. Though an immediate action was required to be taken but it appears that nothing was done by the Project Officer at the relevant time. Ultimately, an order was issued on 05.05.2010 removing said Smt. Archana Tiwari from the post of Aaganwadi Worker and it was said that in case she has any objection to such an order, she may submit a representation before the authorities within a week, failing which the order will become operative. 3. As a vacancy occurred on account of removal of said Smt. Archana Tiwari, an advertisement was again issued inviting applications for appointment on the post of Aaganwadi Worker, which was published in Rozgar and Nirman dated 04.07.2011 to 10.07.2011. The proceeding for selection was again started and the respondent No. 6 again applied for her selection, pursuant to the said advertisement. There were other candidates, who have applied including the petitioner herein, Smt. Arti Upadhyay. The applications of all such candidates were considered, merit assessment was done and then a recommendation was made for appointment of the suitable candidate. The candidature of only one candidate, Ms. Kavita Tiwari, was rejected being ineligible. Rest of the candidates were considered on merit. The petitioner herein obtained 50.34 marks and toped the select list. The second merit holder was Ms. Sudha upadhyay who obtained 42.22 marks. Third candidate in the select list was Ms. Kalpana Upadhyay with 38.89 marks, fourth candidate was Ms. Vandana Shukla who obtained 37.66 marks and the last candidate was the respondent No.6, who obtained 37.44 marks. Consequent to such a selection, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 04.11.2011 as Aaganwadi Worker on which post she joined on 22.11.2011and started working. The respondent No. 6 after taking part in selection filed an appeal against the action of respondents in advertising the post before the competent authority, i.e. the Collector, Rewa. The said appeal was considered on merit and was decided by order dated 12.10.2011. However, the fact remains that petitioner herein was not impleaded as party in the said appeal and after taking part in the selection subsequently initiated by the respondents, the respondent No. 6 has called in question the action of proceedings for selection of Aaganwadi Worker afresh by the said appeal. The ground raised by respondent No. 6 in appeal was that in fact a select list was prepared in the year 2007 in which the respondent No. 6 was at S.No. 3. Smt. Archana Tiwari, who was at S.No.1 was appointed but she has not performed any duty and subsequently her appointment was cancelled. The candidate at S.No.2 of the said select list of 2007 had died, therefore, only respondent No. 6 was available to be appointed on the post of Aaganwadi Worker. However, it was stated that the appeal against the order of Smt. Archana Tiwari was decided by the Collector on 08.04.2010 and the same was rejected. Soon after the order of rejection of appeal since the said Smt. Archana Tiwari was removed from the post, the respondent No. 6 should have been granted the appointment.