LALITA TOMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for challenging order Annexure P/1 dated 14/3/2008 and also non-selection of the petitioner on the post of Aaganwadi worker. The petitioner alongwith other persons applied for the post of Aaganwadi worker for Aaganwadi Center Devpur in Gram panchayat Gurichchha. Copy of the application has been filed as Annexure P/2. Along with petitioner other persons have also applied for the post. The District level Committee in its meeting dated 16. 8. 2007 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that she is resident of village Gurichchha, because as per policy of appointment of Aaganwadi Worker, candidate must be a resident of same village or ward. The committee decided to appoint one Ku. Asha as Aaganwadi worker. Subsequently, it was found that Ku. Asha was under age hence she could not be appointed as Aaganwadi Worker. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector mentioning that she is entitled to be appointed as Aaganwadi Worker. The Collector vide order dated 14. 3. 2008, annexure P/1 rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner does not fulfill the requisite criteria for appointment as Aaganwadi Worker because she is not a resident of village Devpur.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decision of the collector and the District Committee that the-petitioner is not entitled to be appointed as Aaganwadi Worker because she is not the resident of village Devpur is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajsthan and others (2002 S. C. C. (Lands)935) and judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Savitri Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2003 (4) M. P. L. J 106.

(3.) CONTRARY to this learned Dy. Advocate General has submitted that petitioner is not a resident of village Devpur and as per policy 6f the State Government, which was prevailing at that time candidate of Aaganwadi Worker must be a resident of same village. Hence, the candidature of the petitioner has rightly been rejected, In support of her contention learned Dy. Advocate General relied upon judgment of Division of this Court passed in Writ Appeal No. 421/2007 Smt. Sadhana Vs. State of M. P. and others.