SHIV KUMARI PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while praying for the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts as detailed in the body of the petition reveal that the petitioner, as well as the private respondent, offered their candidatures for selection against the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta. Upon participation by the petitioner, the private respondent, as well as other candidates, a merit list vide Annexure P/1 dtd. 6/2/2010 was issued, in which, the private respondent was placed at a serial No.1, having secured 40.22 marks, whereas the present petitioner was placed at serial No.2, having secured 39.60 marks. The private respondent was awarded 10 more marks inasmuch as she belonged to the BPL Category. The award of marks under the BPL category was challenged by the petitioner while impugning the appointment order of the private respondent/respondent No.6 before the Collector, Singrauli. The Collector, Singrauli passed an order dtd. 30/4/2010 contained in Annexure P/6, whereby the order of appointment made in favour of the private respondent was set aside, and a direction was issued to the competent Authority to make an appointment of an eligible candidate from the merit list. In terms of the order passed by the Collector, Singrauli, dtd. 30/4/2010 contained in Annexure P/6, the petitioner herein was appointed as an Aanganwadi Karyakarta vide order dtd. 3/6/2010 contained in Annexure P/7. However, the order passed by the Collector, Singrauli, was assailed by the private respondent by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Division Rewa, District Rewa. The Additional Commissioner, Division Rewa, District Rewa vide impugned order dtd. 4/2/2011 contained in Annexure P/8 set aside the order of Collector, Singrauli. Assailing the order of Additional Commissioner, Singrauli dtd. 4/2/2011 contained in Annexure P/8, this petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter stands in a narrow compass inasmuch as the controversy was put to rest by Collector Singrauli in paragraph 5 of its order dtd. 30/4/2010 contained in Annexure P/6. The Collector Singrauli came to a conclusion that while submitting her application private respondent had enclosed the BPL list wherein the name of one Devendra Kumar S/o Babua Ram was mentioned. The private respondent claimed that Mr. Devendra Kumar was her husband and accordingly, as her husband's name was included in the BPL list, she was entitled for the award of 10 marks. It is contended by the counsel that name of the father of the husband of the private respondent was Ramadhar and not Babua Ram as was mentioned in the BPL Card and this aspect was rightly taken note of by the Collector Singrauli in paragraph 5 of its order dtd. 30/4/2010 contained in Annexure P/6 and the Collector Singrauli concluded that subsequent inclusion of the name of the husband of the private respondent, could not have validated the private respondent's appointment order as an Aanganwadi Karyakarta. The Collector, Singrauli, in unequivocal terms concluded that on the date of submission of the application form, there existed no BPL Card in favour of the private respondent, hence, the question of awarding 10 marks to the private respondent towards the BPL Category does not arise. Accordingly, the order dtd. 30/4/2010 vide Annexure P/6 was passed on sound consideration. Unfortunately, the said well-reasoned order has been interfered with by the Additional Commissioner, Division Rewa, District Rewa by an non-speaking order. The Additional Commissioner, Division Rewa, District Rewa in a single line has observed that if subsequently the name of the husband of the petitioner along with the correct name of his father finds mention in the BPL Card, there existed no illegality in the appointment of the private respondent. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.