ANJANA DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. This petition is directed against order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar; whereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 24.05.2011 passed by Collector, Panna has been dismissed. By order dated 24.05.2011, Collector, Panna has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 which in turn was directed against the appointment of petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarta, ward No.09, Janpad Panchayat, Pawai and has directed for fresh appointment as per the scheme. That, in pursuance to Women and Child Development Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh circular No. F -3 -2/06/50 -2 dated 10.07.2007 recourse were taken to by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Pawai for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta for ward No.09, Janpad Panchayat, Pawai. Petitioner with 51.25 marks was selected in comparison to respondent No.5 who got 50.00 marks. Selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarta was questioned by respondent No.5 before Collector, Panna on the ground that the petitioner being not a resident of ward No.09 but a resident of ward No.03 was not eligible for appointment

(2.) To the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta, Anganwadi Centre ward No.09. The challenge found favour with the Appellate Authority who by order dated 24.05.2011 set aside the appointment of the petitioner and directed the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Pawai to take recourse to for fresh selection to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta for ward No.09. The conclusion was arrived at by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the fact that prior to 21.01.2009, the petitioner though was a resident of ward No.09 but after its bifurcation on 21.01.2009, the petitioner became a resident of ward No.03 and on the date of advertisement/receiving of application for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta i.e. 10.08.2009, the petitioner was registered as a resident and a voter of ward No.03 having name at serial No.229 of the electoral roll. The BPL card produced by the petitioner was found to have been issued on the basis of entry made in the year 2006 as such is of no assistance to the petitioner of her being ascertained as a resident of ward No.09. This finding led the Collector to intercept with the order of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta as the same was found to be contrary to the policy which stipulates that the appointee must be resident of local place where the Anganwadi Centre is located. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal

(3.) It is vehemently contested by the petitioner that the authorities below have returned a perverse finding that the petitioner is not a resident of ward No.09 whereas, the BPL card and the Adhar Card records that the petitioner is resident of ward No.09. However, when put to the query as to whether the BPL card was issued after the bifurcation of ward which was with effect from 21.01.2009, learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that the card has been issued on the basis of The status as it existed in the year 2006.