PRASANDANA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-9 dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar setting aside the order Annexure P-4 dated 22.7.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, District Damoh by which the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Aanganwadi Worker was found illegal because of securing 10 marks under the BPL category.

(2.) On perusal of the facts of the case, it is apparent that the applications were invited for the post of Aanganwadi Worker of the Aanganwadi Center, Khiriya Lakhroni, District Damoh. Total Five applications were received. Respondent No. 5 was appointed on the said post vide order dated 17.10.2016 on being received highest marks in the final list prepared by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Services, Pathariya, District Damoh. The said order was challenged by the present petitioner by filing an appeal before the Additional Collector, Damoh, which was allowed vide order dated 22.7.2017 and the order of appointment of respondent No. 5 was set aside. It was observed that before the District Level Objection Removal Committee, the petitioner objected on the BPL Card of respondent No. 5, the scrutiny of the same was made by Janpad Panchayat, Pathariya. It was further observed that nothing is available on record that on the application submitted by the present petitioner to the Collector on 1.8.2016, he has taken any action. Thereafter referring the documents of educational qualification and other documents like Aadhar Card, Voter ID, BPL card submitted by respondent No.5 and also referring the arguments advanced by the parties, it was observed by the Additional Collector that in the Samagra ID 39543029 the names of family members are mentioned as Rajkumar Lodhi and Bharti Lodhi. An amount of Rs.12,000/- has been sanctioned to both Santosh Singh and Rajkumar separately for construction of lavatory though in one Ration Card of Santosh Singh, the names of Rajkumar Lodhi and his wife respondent No. 5 was not mentioned, therefore, it is clear that the families of Santosh Singh and Rajkumar are different and they are residing separately, in such circumstances, the benefit of BPL card of Santosh Singh (the father of the husband of respondent No. 5) cannot be extended to respondent No.5 and she is not entitled to get 10 marks on the said basis under BPL category. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the present petitioner was allowed. The District Project Officer was directed to prepare fresh merit list after reducing 10 marks of respondent No. 5 and accordingly, the present petitioner was appointed on the said post as per order Annexure P-5 dated 15.9.2017.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order Annexure P-5 dated 15.9.2017, an appeal was preferred by respondent No. 5 before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar which was allowed by the order impugned Annexure P-9 dated 20.11.2017 and the order passed by the Additional Collector was set aside. It is relevant to note here that prior to passing the orders by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner, the objection raised by the present petitioner on the BPL Card of respondent No. 5, was accepted by the Tahsildar and vide Annexure P-8 dated 3.11.2017 name of the father of the husband of respondent No. 5 from the BPL list was deleted.