Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Geeta Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2012
1 W.P No.2514/2010(S)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2514/2010 (S)
PETITIONER : SMT. GEETA DEVI
Vs.
RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P.
OTHERS.
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha.
For the petitioner : Shri N. S. Ruprah, Advocate.
For respondent/State : Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari,
Govt. Advocate.
For respondent no.5. : Shri R. S. Dubey, Advocate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(02/02/2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 16.2.2010 passed by Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in Appeal Case No.92/A/89/09-10 whereby the order passed by the Collector, Chhatarpur in Case No.26/Appeal/B/121/2007-2008 dated 22.1.2008 has been affirmed as a consequence of which the petitioner's appointment as Anganwadi Karyakarta of Anganwadi Centre Kariyabeeja in Gram Panchayat Pehrapurwa, Tehsil Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur has been set aside while that of the respondent no.5 has been affirmed. 2 W.P No.2514/2010(S)
2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 4.8.2007 issued by Gram Panchayat, Pehrapurwa the petitioner as well as the respondent no.5 alongwith others applied for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta and after scrutiny a provisional select list was published in which the petitioner's name was mentioned at Serial No.1 while that of respondent no.5 was mentioned at Serial No.2 on account of the fact that the petitioner was awarded 37.6% marks whereas respondent no.5 was awarded 29.6% marks.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid provisional select list the respondent no.5 filed a complaint before the authorities on 16.11.2007 to the effect that the petitioner was disqualified for appointment on account of the fact that she was not a permanent resident of Gram Panchayat Pehrapurwa and did not possess a certificate of being a person below the poverty line. Pursuant to the objections raised by the respondent no.5, an enquiry was made and ultimately by order dated 25.10.2007 the respondent no.5 was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakarta.
Being aggrieved by the appointment of respondent no.5 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, 3 W.P No.2514/2010(S) Chhatarpur who dismissed the same on 22.1.2008 affirming the order of appointment of respondent no.5. However, the second appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Commissioner by order dated 27.10.2008 being aggrieved by which the respondent no.5 had filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P No.260/2009 and was ultimately partly allowed by order dated 27.11.2009 with a direction to the Commissioner to re-examine the matter after considering all the documents on record and hearing the respondent no.5 and while remitting the matter back, the order passed by the Commissioner dated 27.10.2008 was set aside.
In view of the directions issued by this Court, the Commissioner re-examined the matter and thereafter passed the impugned order dated 16.2.2010 affirming the order of the Collector dated 22.1.2008 thereby upholding the appointment of respondent no.5 on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner dated 16.2.2010 the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court. 4 W.P No.2514/2010(S)
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner, while deciding the matter, has totally ignored the documents filed by the petitioner to the effect that the respondent no.5 was not qualified for being appointed as an Anganwadi Karyakarta on account of the fact that she was a permanent resident of Chhatarpur and not of Gram Panchayat Pehrapurwa. It is further submitted that the Commissioner has also not taken note of the documents filed by the petitioner clearly establishing the fact that she is a permanent resident of village Pehrapurwa; that her name was clearly mentioned in the voters list of the said village and that she was residing in the said village alongwith her husband and, therefore, the impugned order suffers from total non-application of mind and being perverse deserves to be set aside.
4. The learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State as well as the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submit that all the aforesaid objections raised by the petitioner have been duly considered by the Commissioner in the impugned order dated 16.2.2010. It is further stated that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Anganwadi 5 W.P No.2514/2010(S) Karyakarta of Gram Panchayat Pehrapurwa has been rejected on account of the fact that she is married to one Pratipal Singh Kachwaha who is a permanent resident of village Malka; her name appears in the voters list of the said village as well as in the Rozgar Guarantee Register of the year 2006 and that her name is also mentioned in the Pariwar Patra issued to Balwan Singh, father-in-law of the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. It is settled law that in cases like the present one where there are concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the successive authorities, this Court is only required to examine as to whether the impugned order suffers from any perversity or material irregularity or is in violation of the procedure prescribed by law.
6. In the instant case, the Commissioner in the impugned order has specifically analyzed the documents brought on record by the authorities in para-10 wherein he has negatived the claim of the petitioner based on the voters list of village Pehrapurwa and the permanent resident certificate issued in her favour on 10.2.2003 on the ground that the permanent resident certificate does not mention the name of her husband but only mentions 6 W.P No.2514/2010(S) the petitioner's name as daughter of Ranjor Singh Parihar who possesses 6.313 Hectares of land and does not at any place state or mention the fact that the petitioner is married to Pratipal Singh Kachwaha. The Commissioner has also taken note of the fact that the name of the petitioner and her husband is mentioned at Serial No.124 and 122 respectively in the voters list of village Malka published as on 1.1.2004; that her name finds place in the Parivar Patra No.044199 issued to Balwan Singh, her father-in-law; that her name finds place and mention at Serial No.296 in the Rozgar Guarantee Register of Gram Panchayat Malka, Janpad Panchayat Nowgaon as on 26.1.2006 and that her father- in-law also possesses land in village Malka. It is also admitted that the petitioner is married to Pratipal Singh Kachwaha and is living with her husband.
7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, on the basis of the aforesaid uncontroverted documents, I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the petitioner regarding perversity and non-application of mind deserves to be rejected as the Commissioner has duly examined and scrutinized all the documents on record and applied his mind thereupon. Quite apart from the above, it is also clear from a perusal of the order 7 W.P No.2514/2010(S) dated 22.1.2008 passed by the Collector which has been affirmed by the Commissioner that the claim of the respondent no.5 and her initial order of appointment dated 25.10.2007 as Anganwadi Karyakarta of Anganwadi Centre Kariyabeeja has been affirmed by recording a finding to the effect that her name appears at Serial No.293 in the voters list of village Pehrapurwa and that she has a permanent house there and is residing there, even though her husband is employed as a daily wager in the Poultry Department at Chhatarpur. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order as it does not suffer from any manifest error or apparent illegality.
8. The petition, filed by the petitioner, being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to the costs.
( R. S. JHA ) JUDGE 02/02/2012 mms/-