DEMAN BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, said to be a candidate for appointment on the post of Aaganwadi Worker, has come before this Court in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ventilating her grievance against the order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the respondent No.2, Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, allowing the revision of respondent No.5 and setting aside the order of the Collector, Balaghat, by which the petitioner was directed to be appointed on the post of Aaganwadi Worker. It is contended by the petitioner that a scheme was made by the State Government for opening of Aaganwadi Centers within the rural areas of the State for the purposes of establishing such Aaganwadi Centers for providing elementary education to the children of the rural areas. In each such Aaganwadi Center, an Aaganwadi Worker and an Assistant Aaganwadi Worker were to be appointed. Pursuant to the scheme, applications were invited. The petitioner and respondent No.5 both have submitted their candidature. However, by an erroneous order, in place of the petitioner, a less qualified person, the respondent No.5 was selected and appointed. Against the order of appointment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Balaghat, who after examining the record, came to the conclusion that such appointment of the respondent No.5 was dehors the scheme made by the State Government and set aside the said order directing that the petitioner be appointed in place of respondent No.5 as Aaganwadi Worker. A revision was preferred against the order passed in appeal by the Additional Collector on 05.01.2006 before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur by the respondent No.5 and by order dated 22.06.2006, the order of the Additional Collector, Balaghat, was set aside, the matter was remitted back to grant an opportunity of hearing to all concerned and pass fresh order. The Collector, Balaghat, heard the matter again after granting full opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5 and again came to the conclusion that the respondent No.5 was less qualified and was not to be given appointment in preference to the petitioner as a better qualified person is required to be appointed. Again a revision was filed by the respondent No.5 against the said order and since the said revision is allowed vide impugned order dated 07.03.2008, the present petition is required to be filed.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner that she was entitled to be granted the benefit of marks in terms of the then prevalent policy. She was not to be denied the benefit of marks as she was living below the poverty line. These facts were deliberately ignored by the Divisional Additional Commissioner. Though an order of appointment was issued in respect of the petitioner after passing the order by the Collector, Balaghat on 18.01.2007, only because the order of Collector was set aside by the Additional Commissioner, petitioner is not allowed to work on the post of Aaganwadi Worker. It is, thus, contended that the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the order passed by the Collector, Balaghat, is to be affirmed.

(3.) IT is contended that the Collector thereafter did not look into the scheme made by the State Government, which was in vogue at the relevant time. On the other hand, looking to the new scheme made by the State Government, it was said that preference was to be given to the petitioner and, therefore, a better qualified person should be appointed and again allowed the appeal of the petitioner. When these facts were brought to the notice of the Revisional Authority by filing a revision by the respondent No.5, the same was examined and the order impugned has been passed setting aside the order of the Collector. It is contended that in view of the scheme, which was in vogue at the relevant time, the respondent No.5 was rightly selected as only the Gram Sabha was the selecting authority and not any other authority. In the order of preference, the petitioner was not to be given any weightage looking to the facts as were recorded by the Gram Sabha in its proceedings. That being so, it is contended that there is no force in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.