KIRTA BARELA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the petition is to quash the guideline (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2 for appointment of Village Employment Assistant whereby post has been reserved for residents of related Gram Panchayat. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 2.6.2012 respondent No. 2 has issued a letter to all the Collectors and Chief Executive of Jila Panchayat for appointment of Village Employment Assistant with a guideline according to which the posts are being reserved for resident of related Gram Panchayat candidate. It is submitted that again on 20.6.2012 letter was issued to all the concerns. It is submitted that as per the policy only local resident of Gram Panchayat are eligible for appointment on the post of Village Employment Assistant. It is submitted that in the year 2010 respondents issued a memorandum for appointment of Village Employment Assistant and under that memorandum there was no condition that the post of Village Employment Assistant shall be filled in from the resident of particular village. It is submitted that the condition imposed is in violation of Article 16 of Constitution of India. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Union of India v. Sanjay Pant, 1993 AIR(SC) 1365 wherein in a case of employment in Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Hon'ble Apex Court held that recruitment of being a 'local candidate' is opposed to Article 16(2) of Constitution of India. Moreso, when Administration had made no provision under Article 16(4) of Constitution of India imposing such requirement. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Gayatri Radheshyam Pancholi v. State of M.P., 1985 MPLJ 220wherein this Court held that circular dated 4.10.1983 in the matter of appointment of teachers from rural areas by Director of Public Instruction, Bhopal, requirement of local residence in the particular block is violative of Article 16(2). Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, 1984 AIR(SC) 1420 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed that reservation on the basis of residence requirement within the State and institutional preference cannot exceed 70% of open-general seats and wholesale reservation on aforesaid grounds is violative of Article 14. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Mahender Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2008 4 SLR 415 wherein criteria of giving 50% reservation in appointment to rural candidates as unconstitutional, Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the public residing in rural area cannot be treated as seaport a special socially and educationally backward class as a whole in the absence of any data collected in compliance with the mandate of Article 335 of the Constitution. It was further observed that ceiling limit of 50% reservation cannot be allowed to be exceeded in the absence of special compelling reasons and circumstances. It was also held that reservation of 50% seats is against the fundamental rights. Lastly reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Brahmchari Madhyamik Vidyalaya Alwar v. Raj. Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Jaipur, 2005 8 SLR 483 wherein in a matter of appointment on the post of Primary Teacher where condition in advertisement that applicant should be registered with an employment exchange in Delhi, High Court of Rajasthan held that mere discrepancies of schools on the basis of location does not set them apart from schools of rest of country. It was further held that plea of institutional preference has no nexus with object of recruitment powers. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned Counsel submits that the petition be allowed and order Annexure P/1 be quashed.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents supports the order Annexure P/1 and submits that the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits as the restriction imposed is a reasonable restriction. It is submitted that the petition be dismissed.

(3.) In the matter of Upma Singh v. Commissioner, Rewa, 2011 4 MPLJ 501 in a matter of appointment as Anganwadi worker and the condition was of local residence, this Court held that the condition of local residence cannot be said such a condition cannot be imposed for the purpose to initiate, organize and constitute Anganwadis in a smaller areas. The object of the scheme is to provide educational and social information to the women living in the area as also provided care and look after to the children of the area. It is essential that a local resident of the area is given preference because not only she is known to the women folk but also able to look after the children by giving more time to the work assigned. Thus, if such a condition is mentioned in a particular scheme it cannot be said that any discrimination is done on the basis of residence of a candidate and as such the same is violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India or the equality Clause enshrined in the Constitution of India. This being so, it was necessary to prove that the candidate was, not only age wise, education wise eligible but also was eligible on account other residence in the local area.