RAMKALI PAWAIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order Annexure P -1 dated 10.01.2008 by which challenge to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi worker has been upheld by the Collector, thereby canceling the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 25.10.2007 and correspondingly directing the appointment of respondent no.6 to the said post on the ground that the petitioner was not a resident of Village Moonga Ram Ka Pura where the Anganwadi Centre is situated for which the appointment in question was made. Further challenge is made to the order of Commissioner dated 30.09.2009 Annexure P -2 by which the order of Collector has been upheld. Lastly, challenge is made to Annexure P -3 dated 25.01.2008 by which the respondent no. 6 has been appointed as an Anganwadi worker at the said place. Indisputably, the petitioner is a resident of nearby village namely Mohar Singh ka Pura.

(2.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of final hearing.

(3.) The sole contention raised by petitioner is that the petitioner's appointment could not have been found fault with merely because she was not a resident of the village where the appointment has been made. It is submitted that if this course of action is allowed, then it would amount to violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.