RAMSHREE SEN Vs. SHARDA SHARMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant vide this appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity "the Act, 2005") takes exception to order dated 16.05.2017 passed in W.P.No.8660/2016. As the appellant was not a party in writ petition, but is adversely effected by the said order also seeks leave to file present appeal.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the controversy are that respondent no.1 was initially appointed on 01.10.1990 as Aanganwadi Worker. It appears from material documents on record, more particularly Annexure R/1 filed along with the return in the writ petition that, the minimum educational qualification for appointment as Aanganwadi Worker was Class V which led the petitioner represent, vide Annexure R/1 at the time of initial appointment, and seek leave to file the copy of Class V mark-sheet, which as evident from said document was permitted taking into consideration the poor economic condition of the petitioner. However, it transpires from the submissions made on behalf of the parties that the petitioner, i.e. respondent No.1 did not honour the undertaking. It also transpires from record Annexure R/3 and R/4 that while in service respondent No.1 got herself twice examined by Medical Board for determination of her age; firstly, on 07/11/2015 and second time on 20.07.2016. In the report of the year 2015, respondent No.1 was determined to be about 59 years and in the report of later year i.e. 2016 she was found to be of 58 years. Pertinent it is to note that this determination was despite that respondent No.1's date of birth was recorded in her service book was 01.07.1950.

(3.) Pertinent it is to note that all these facts were adverted at by the State in its return in Writ Petition 8660/2016 and were not denied by respondent No.1. Be that as it may. On discovery of the facts that the date of birth of respondent No.1 in the document presented at the time of initial appointment was 01.07.1950 and that the respondent No.1 got herself medically examined twice, once on 07/11/2015 and then on 20.07.2016 for determination of age whereon two different ages were recorded as 59 years and 58 years respectively, led the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project terminate the services with immediate effect by order dated 04.08.2016.