Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Maya Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2020
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1 WP-15372-2011
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-15372-2011
(SMT. MAYA SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
13
Jabalpur, Dated : 27-02-2020
Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Senior counsel with Shri Pushpendra
Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Shashank Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
The petitioner one of the candidate for the post of Aganwadi Karyakarta along with respondent No.5 had participated in the selection process conducted in the year 2007. The petitioner was second in merit list whereas, the respondent No.5 was first in merit list, therefore, she was appointed as such on 03.11.2007.
Petitioner had challenged the declaration of residential address of respondent No.5 before the Collector inter alia, contending that the respondent No.5 has given a false declaration. She was the resident of village Salailya Tehsil Churhat whereas, she was appointed at village Jhumar, Tehsil Churhat on false certificate of resident proof of village Jhumar. However, the plea was turned down by the Collector and confirmed by the Commissioner by the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 (Annexure P-1).
During pendency of writ petition, a criminal trial was also initiated on a complaint against respondent No.5. She stands convicted vide judgment dated 16.07.2019 in Sessions Trial No.29/2016 for the offence under Sections 467, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years, 3 years and 1 year respectively with fine of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulation. It further appears that subsequent upon conviction, she has been removed from the post of Aganwadi Karyakarta on 18.07.2019. The copy of the judgment and the said order are on record with I.A.No.9056/2019. There is no denial of the fact of 2 WP-15372-2011 aforesaid two documents. However, it is submitted that respondent No.5 has preferred an appeal before this Court and she has been enlarged on bail.
In view of the change circumstances, learned Senior counsel submits that as post has fallen vacant and petitioner was at Sl. No.2, respondents be commanded to appoint her as Aganwadi Karyakart at village Jhumar.
Learned Govt. Advocate fairly submits that such direction may be passed subject to availability of the vacancy and if no other incumbent has been appointed based upon the subsequent selection during pendency of writ petition.
The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be reasonable and, therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions and orders :-
(i) the petitioner shall appear in person and submit a certified copy of order passed today along with representation before the Competent Authority within one week;
(ii) the said authority in turn, shall consider the claim of the petitioner, if the post of Aganwadi Karyakarta at village Jhumar still lies vacant, the petitioner being at Serial No.2 in the selection list, be appointed as Aganwadi Karyakarta subject to final outcome of Criminal Appeal No.6126/2019.
(iii) however, the aforesaid order is subject to the post lying vacant and not filled up through subsequent selection process during pendency of appeal.
(iv) the entire exercise be completed within 4 (four) weeks therefrom.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE AM Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2020.02.29 16:00:26 +05'30'