Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku Arti Dahayat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.24112/2021
(Ku.Arti Dahayat Vs. State of M.P.)
JABALPUR : 11.11.2021
Shri Deonath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pradeep Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Amilesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 1.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa whereby learned Additional Commissioner has upheld the order passed by the Collector district Rewa in case No.59/A-89/appeal/2019-2020 (Smt.Sangeeta Prajapati Vs. Ku.Aarti Dahayat and another) vide order dated 12.1.2021.
Brief facts leading to present petition are that an advertisement was issued for appointment of Anganwadi karyakarta/Sahayaka for which both the petitioner as well as private respondent No.6 were candidates. It is not in dispute that a provisional select list was published in which name of the private respondent was placed above that of the petitioner on account of her scoring more marks than the petitioner which included 10 marks for holding BPL card. However, an objection was raised on behalf of the present petitioner that private respondent was not entitled to grant of 10 marks for BPL category and, therefore, the score was reduced from 61.50 to 51.50 relegating her to the ninth position and petitioner was placed at s. no.1 with 56.90 score in a final select list issued on 29.2.2020. This final select list was subject matter of challenge before the Collector wherein private respondent while filing an appeal asserted that her husband and father-in-law both finds 2 their name in the BPL list and possess a ration card which was allegedly prepared on the basis of survey of 2003 and in this ration card name of her father-in-law Lalwa Prajapati and that of her husband Shri Bhubaneswar Prajapati is mentioned, therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in the scheme dated 10.7.2007 issued by M.P. Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Mantralaya so also subsequent clarification issued by the same Department vide no.114/1489/2017/50-2 dated 15.5.2017 in case petitioner's name or name of her family is mentioned in the BPL ration card issued prior to the date of an advertisement for filing filling up of the post then that person is entitled to grant of 10 marks.
Collector, Rewa, accepted the appeal and passed the impugned order in favour of private respondent directing the authorities to compute 10 marks for BPL category and on the strength of said computation she stole march over the present petitioner. Present petitioner being aggrieved of the order passed by the Collector approached the learned Additional Commissioner by filing second appeal in terms of the scheme dated 10-7-2007 but that second appeal too has been dismissed; hence this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly private respondent's name was not mentioned in the ration card; secondly no attempt was made by the matrimonial family of the private respondent to get her name included; thirdly the authorities of the Department while making scrutiny found certain manipulations and, therefore, they had reduced 10 BPL remarks but Collector, Rewa arbitrarily recorded a finding that not only the name of the private respondent finds mention in the ration card but the cutting in her name etc. is duly authenticated by the concerned Sarpanch of village Mandwa. It is further submitted that petitioner is still working and, therefore, some indulgence be shown inasmuch as it is settled 3 principle of law that name of a person cannot be added subsequent to the issuance of advertisement and no benefit can be derived on the strength of such subsequent addition. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this High Court in the case of Draupati Tiwari vs. State of M.P. and others, 2013(2) to MPLJ 407, which deals with the aspect of cut off date.
Learned counsel for private respondent Shri Amilesh Chaturvedi supports the impugned order and submits that no indulgence is required in a matter especially when in the scheme dated 10.7.2007 in clause v&2 ¼v½ 2 it is provided that 10 marks have been prescribed for a woman of a family below poverty line and this aspect has been further clarified in the order dated 15.5.2017 that benefit of 10 marks for BPL category will be extended to only those women candidates whose name/ family is mentioned in the BPL list prior to the date of the advertisement. Relevant clauses are as under :-
v&2 ¼v½ 2. xjhch js[kk ds uhps jgus okys ifjokj dh efgyk ds fy, 10 vad mDr fLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, xjhch js[kk ds uhps jgus okys ifjokj dh efgyk vkosfndk dks ch-ih-,y- ds 10 vadks dk ykHk mlh fLFkfr esa fn;k tkosa tcfd mldk@ifjokj dk uke foKfIr tkjh gksus dh frfFk ds iwoZ ls fujUrj lwph esa fon~;eku gksA Shri Pradeep Singh supports the arguments advanced by Shri Amilesh Chaturvedi and submits that no interference is required.
As per English usage "/" (forward slash) also known as forward slash, stroke, oblique, is often used to indicate "or". As per Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary of Current English, A.S.Hornby, Seventh edition, oblique the symbol (/) used to show alternatives. In the case of Star Co. Ltd. V. 4 Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1970 SC 1559, it is held that positive conditions separated by "or" are read in the alternative; and, in the case of Patel Chunibhai Dajibha Vs. Narayanrao, AIR 1965 SC 1457, negative conditions connected by "or" are construed as cumulative and 'or' is read as 'nor' or 'and'. Thus, if these judgments are taken into consideration then positive conditions separated by 'or' symbolised by forward slash which means 'or' are to be read in the alternative and meaning of such a reading will be that at the time of the application, the applicant herself or in alternative her family members should be the holders of valid BPL card document.
When tested on this legal proposition then there is no iota of doubt that when petitioner herself admits that father-in-law and husband of the private respondent are part of the BPL card holders prior to the date of the advertisement then by inclusion private respondent on account of her marriage to a member of BPL family will become a BPL card holder and, therefore, the Collector and Commissioner have not erred in passing the impugned order calling for any interference.
Law laid down in the case of Draupti Tiwari (supra) is to be examined in the context of interpretation of the forward slash used in circular dated 10.5.2017 which further clarifies the aspect of clause v&2 ¼v½ 2 which mentions "xjhch js[kk ds uhps jgus okys ifjokj dh efgyk ds fy, 10 vad Therefore there is no error in the impugned order calling for any interference. Hence, this petition fails and is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Digitally signed by HEMANT HS SARAF Date: 2021.11.18 17:44:30 +05'30' 5