Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Bindu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 October, 2016
(1)
W.P. No. 16/2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 16/2013
Smt. Bindu Singh
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
As Per : J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Dy.AG with Shri Girish Kekre, GA for
respondent No. 1 to 5/State.
Shri Ashish Pathak, counsel for respondent No. 6.
ORDER
(24.10.2016)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2012 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in Revision No.329/2011 whereby the order 10.7.2012 passed by the Collector, District Sidhi in Case No.154/A-89/A/2011-2012 has been set aside.
2. Matter in dispute is with respect to appointment of Aanganwadi Karyakarta of Aanganwadi Center Khorwatola, which took place in furtherance to the advertisement issued by Project Officer to which application forms were submitted by 10 applicants in the month of August, 2009. As per chart (P-1) prepared by the Office of Project Officer, Khorwatola, it is apparent that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 both are having qualification of 12 th pass, accordingly, marks were allotted percentage wise, thereafter respondent No. 6 has been allotted 10 marks being a BPL card holder and accordingly she secured 42.8 marks while the petitioner was having higher qualification (B.A.), therefore, 10 marks were given to her and she secured 38.6. marks.
(2)W.P. No. 16/2013
3. An appeal was preferred against the appointment of respondent No. 6 on the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta before the Collector, Sidhi who by his order dated 10.7.2012 considered the material brought before him and found that in the Sarvekshan Patrak of the year 2003, respondent No. 6 has secured 17 marks, however, the person who may have secured 14 marks, may be included in the BPL list. It was also observed that respondent No. 6 got prepared the incorrect record for the purpose of securing marks of BPL, which is void, therefore, recorded the conclusion that respondent No. 6 is not entitled to secure the marks of BPL. The Collector, District Sidhi has further considered the marks, which can be allotted either to the petitioner or to respondent No. 6 and looking to the allotment of the marks as per their qualifications and experience of "Asha Karyakarta" of respondent No. 6 found that petitioner would secure 38 marks and respondent No. 6 would secure 36 marks, therefore, the petitioner is the candidate of merit and accordingly selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 was cancelled issuing direction to appoint the petitioner. The said order has been set aside by the Commissioner by the impugned order (P-9) holding that against the list of BPL card holders to strike out the names of the persons, if wrongly added, authority competent has been specified before whom no objection has been submitted by the petitioner herein. More so, the Collector has relied upon the photocopies, which cannot form the basis to refuse the marks obtained by respondent no. 6 while preparing the merit list. The Commissioner has further observed that respondent No. 6 would be entitled to secure 6 marks towards experience of "Aasha Karyakarta" in place of 4 marks as held by the Collector. However, held that respondent No. 6 is the (3) W.P. No. 16/2013 candidate of merit.
4. On filing various documents in favour or in counter, it is disputed that name of respondent No. 6 was not in the list of BPL card holders of village Khorwatola, Block Development Sihawal in the year 2002-03. However, as per the direction issued by this Court on 24.6.2016, the original record was called through CEO of Janpad Panchayat, which was kept in sealed cover. On perusal of the said record as well as on comparing document (P-3) produced by the petitioner, it reveals that in original record at serial number 157, name of one Anuj belonging to OBC category, secured 14 marks, resident of House No. 218 has been specified. In the list (P-3) relied upon by the petitioner contending that it has been prepared by forgery writing father's name of Anuj (husband of respondent No. 6) as Kunjbhan and by striking out the 'OBC' caste, it has been written as "Kshatriya" and the entries in the columns remained as it is. However, it is urged that the list prepared in the office of Block Development or produced by respondent No. 6 for the purpose of appointment of Aanganwadi Karyakarta, Khorwatola have been fabricated with intent to give benefit to respondent No. 6.
5. It is seen from the record that while preparing the merit list, the category of respondent No. 6 who is the wife of Anuj has been shown as "general" and not as "OBC". The petitioner has also been shown to be of "general" category. However, it is apparent that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 both have applied under general category. In the list relied upon for the purpose of granting of 10 marks of BPL card holder in Block Development Sihawal, Village Khorwatola and the father's name or the husband has been mentioned by handwriting and also the caste changing it from OBC to Kshatriya co-relating the (4) W.P. No. 16/2013 category in which respondent No. 6 has applied for. The Commissioner approving the same, has given 10 marks while the Collector has specified that respondent No. 6 has secured 17 marks while preparing the list of BPL, which is above than the cut off mark to include the name of the persons in the BPL list, therefore, it appears that at serial number 157 Anuj is not the husband of the petitioner but he is the person belonging to OBC category and secured 14 marks, therefore, he has been enlisted in the category of BPL and as per the finding of the Collector, he has secured 17 marks thus the said finding of allotting 17 marks recorded by the Collector has not been rebutted in the impugned order passed in the revision, however, looking to the original record as well as the documents which form basis to give benefit to respondent No. 6 appears to be prepared subsequently, therefore, in this regard investigation is required to be conducted by the Police authorities.
6. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is apparent that the finding of the Collector is based on the record, has been turned down because the said list has not been challenged before the competent authority, but such findings cannot allow to sustain. In fact if original list of BPL card holders and list relied upon for the purpose of preparation of the merit list for appointment of Aanganwadi Karyakarta apparently indicate the entry by handwriting and striking of the caste from columns, comparing the original list, therefore, the finding of the Collector is justifiable and the reasoning assigned to reverse those findings by the Commissioner cannot be allowed to stand.
7. So far as grant of benefit of marks of Asha Karyakarta to respondent No. 6 as granted by the Commissioner is concerned, it is to (5) W.P. No. 16/2013 observe here that the forms were submitted in the month of August, 2009. On the date of submission of the form, respondent No. 6 was not having complete 3 years' experience, therefore, 6 marks as allotted by the Commissioner without having 3 years' experience reversing the finding of the Collector of granting 4 marks to her is also perverse, therefore, same deserves to be set aside.
8. In view of the foregoing, in my considered opinion the finding as recorded by the Commissioner reversing finding of the Collector is unsustainable on facts as discussed hereinabove, therefore, order (P-9) dated 12.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner stands set aside upholding the order of Collector.
9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and after perusal of the original record produced before this Court, it is apparent that name of one Anuj in the list of Village Khorwatola, Block Development Sihawal as specified at serial number 157, is the person belongs to OBC category and secured 14 marks and the resident of House No. 218 but the list relied upon by the authorities for preparation of the merit list for the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta in front of name of husband of the petitioner Anuj his father's name has been mentioned as Kunjbhan Singh by handwriting and striking of his caste OBC, Kshatriya has been written. Simultaneously, a document has also been filed by respondent No. 6 (R/6-2), which is supplied under Right to Information by the CEO wherein husband of respondent No. 6 has been shown as son of Kunjbhan showing (Anuj) granting 14 marks and House No. 218. On the Photocopy it appears that some manipulation has been done. However, it is a matter of enquiry. In fact in the another list filed of the same year, father's name of Anuj has been mentioned as (6) W.P. No. 16/2013 Basant Lal Kushwaha and the said person belonging to OBC category site house number, therefore, it appears that some manipulation in the documents are there, which is apparent from perusal of the original record wherein in front of name of Anuj neither father's name has been given nor caste OBC has been struck out. However, in this regard Superintendent of Police, Sidhi is directed to hold an investigation in the matter within a period of 3 months from today and if it is found that the said manipulation is done with intent to commit forgery then the offence be registered against the person who is found at guilt including respondent No. 6 or the officer who prepared the aforesaid list to grant the benefit to a particular person.
10. Needless to observe that while conducting the enquiry in the matter, opportunity of hearing be given to respondent No. 6 and if any objection is filed by the petitioner, it may be taken into consideration while arriving at final conclusion by the S.P. after conclusion of the enquiry, report be sent to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be brought into notice in Chamber.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition stands allowed. Impugned order (P-9) dated 12.12.2012 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa stands set aside upholding the order dated 10.7.2012 passed by the Collector, District Sidhi. In the facts, parties to bear their own costs.
(J.K.Maheshwari) Judge PB