DRAUPATI TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed calling in question the order dated 12-8-2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 11983/08(S), by which the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Additional Commissioner, has been dismissed. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in brief are that an advertisement was issued by the Gram Panchayat concerned for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in the centre in question. The appellant and the respondent No. 5 submitted their candidature for appointment to the aforesaid post. The appellant claimed the preference being a polio affected person with 45% disability and having passed Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination. It was stated by the appellant that she was the local resident of the ward and was entitled for appointment as Anganwadi Worker. The respondent No. 5 also submitted her candidature and claimed the preference being the widow, having passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination. The process of selection was done, the candidature of respondent No. 5 was excluded, the appellant was selected and appointed by the Selection Committee vide order dated 29-9-2007. The appellant joined on the post on 5-10-2007, after tendering resignation from the post of Asha Karyakarta. According to the appellant, she underwent the training and was working on the post.

(2.) The selection and appointment of appellant was challenged before the Collector by the respondent No. 5. The allegations were made that the appellant was already working as Asha Karyakarta, her brother-in-law was a Panchayat Secretary/Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat and, therefore, she was ineligible to be appointed on the post of Anganwadi Worker. The contention was raised that the candidature of respondent No. 5 was wrongly rejected though she has passed the qualifying examination. The Additional Collector, however, after hearing ail the sides dismissed the appeal of the respondent No. 5 on 27-12-2007. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the Additional Collector, the respondent No. 5 filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner Sagar Division, Sagar. After hearing the appeal, the Additional Commissioner reached to the conclusion that candidature of respondent No. 5 was wrongly rejected as she, too, was qualified to be considered for selection. The appeal filed by the respondent No. 5 was allowed by the impugned order dated 18-9-2008, which was sought to be challenged in the writ petition before this Court by the appellant. Since the writ petition has been dismissed by the order under challenge in this appeal, the present intra Court appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Udyan Tiwari, vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge has not carefully examined the findings recorded by the Additional Collector and has reached to the conclusion that the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar has rightly interfered with the findings of the Additional Collector and has rightly set aside the order of the Additional Collector. It is contended that there was a period prescribed for making of an application for selection for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker. The respondent No. 5 was ineligible on the date of making of the application for her appointment on the post and even when the selection process was completed and the order of appointment was issued in respect of the appellant, the result of the examination of respondent No. 5 was not notified. As she has failed in the qualifying examination in one subject and the result of supplementary examination was declared much after the selection process was over, the respondent No. 5 was not to be considered at all for selection on the post of Anganwadi Worker. This materially important aspect was overlooked by the Additional Commissioner even when he interfered with the categorical findings recorded by the Additional Collector of the district. This particular aspect was not looked into by the learned Single Judge and wrongly the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.