Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Tulsa Bai Gond vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 21st OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 4970 of 2014
Between:-
SMT. TULSA BAI GOND W/O SHRI RAMNARAYAN GOND ,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, VILLAGE CHOUPRA, TEHSIL AND
DISTT. PANNA, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SATYENDRA KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY WOMEN
AND CHILD DEVELOPMEENT DEPTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER SAGAR COMMISSIONER SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR PANNA COLLECTOR PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER WOMAN AND CHILD
DEBELOPM ENT WOMAN AND CHILD DEBELOPMENT
PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SMT. ANITA GOND W/O BAHADUR GOND VILLAGE
GHOUPRA TEHSIL AND DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA VERMA, PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved of order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Court of Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar in appeal No.269/A-89/2009-10 whereby learned Commissioner allowed appeal of the respondent No.6 in the matter of appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta.
Petitioner's contention is that petitioner along with respondent No.6 were candidates to selection for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta. Petitioner was given appointment on the Signature SAN Not Verified post of Anganwadi Karyakarta at Anganwadi Kendra,Choupra, Gram Panchayat Sakariya, Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH District Panna vide order dated 25.06.2007 (Annexure P-2). In pursuance of this order, KHAN Date: 2022.04.22 18:27:54 IST 2 petitioner had submitted her joining on 25.06.2007 (Annexure P-3) thereafter private respondents had filed objections before the Competent Authority that she was more meritorious but her candidature was wrongly rejected. These objections were decided by the Competent Authority taking note of the provisions contained in Clause v-I (4) which reads as under-:
v&12 ü4½ p;fur dh tkus okyh vkaxuckMh dk;ZdrkZ dh p;u izfdz;k ds izR;{k ;k vizR;{k rFkk j[kus okys ljdkjh deZpkjh vFkok iapk;rhjkt laLFkkvks uxjjh; fudk;ksa ds fuokZfpr lxs laca/kh esa vfHkizk; gS fd 'kkldh; vf/kdkjh vFkok euksuhr lnL; vFkok mlds lxs laca/kh ugh gksuk pkfg;sA lxs laca/kh ls vfHkizk; gS fd 'kkldh; vf/kdkjh deZpkjh ds firk] ekrk] HkkbZ ]cgu] ifr]] iRuh] iq=] iq=h] llqj] lkl] lkyk¼cznj bu ykW½] lkyh‚¼flLVj bu ykW½ ]nkekn ¼lu bu ykW½ iq= o/kqA Thus holding that husband of the private respondent No.6 was a Panch, therefore, she was not eligible for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakarta. Thereafter respondent No.6 had preferred an appeal before the Collector, Panna which was decided vide order dated 01.04.2008 and appeal filed by respondent No.6 was rejected in terms of para- (v) of the advertisement dated 27.05.2007.
Thereafter, respondent No.6 filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was allowed and therefore, this writ petition.
It is submitted that Commissioner has misinterpreted the Clause contained in the circular of the Women and Child Welfare Department and on the basis of such misinterpretation has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.6.
Shri Pushpendra Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that he is an agreement that the order of the Commissioner Sagar, Division Sagar suffers from inherent non application of mind and appreciation of the provision contained in the policy dated 27.05.2006.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Clause 4 of the circular clearly provides that the persons seeking appointment as Anganwadi Sahika or Anganwadi Karyakarta could not have any direct or indirect relationship with the Government Employees or Panchayati Raj institution or elected or nominated members of urban bodies. Close relatives means that they should not be father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, father in law, daughter in law, bother in law, sister in law, son in law of that candidate.
3It is no where provided that these persons should not participate in the selection process as has been wrongly mentioned by the learned Commissioner. In fact learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate the provisions of the policy in the correct perspective and has given a twist to the policy directives which is not permissible and policy is to be read as it is. No omissions can be supplied to the said policy as it will be against the principles of statutory interpretation.
Therefore, when tested on this touch stone, impugned order of Commissioner Sagar can not be said to be legal and it being arbitrary and unjust is hereby quashed. Petition is allowed and it is directed that petitioner shall continue to work as Anganwadi Karyakarta in terms of the interim orders which were passed in this case.
In above terms, this petition is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish