Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jyotsna Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.8420/2018
(Jyotsana Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.)
Jabalpur, Dated :07.03.2019
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Devika Singh Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Amrit Lal Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order of Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa dated 28.03.2018 is under challenge, whereby the Additional Commissioner has affirmed the order passed by respondent No.3/Collector dated 09.01.2012.
This is second round of litigation between the parties. The petitioner and respondent No.6 and other candidates submitted their candidature for the post of Anganwadi Worker with the relevant documents. A merit list was prepared in which petitioner's name found place at Sl.No.1 with 76 marks and respondent No.6 at Sl.No.2 with 53 marks. Respondent No.6 has submitted her objection with 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.8420/2018 (Jyotsana Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) regard to mark sheet of Class V of the petitioner. However, her objections were rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 12.08.2010. This order was challenged before the Collector, who vide order dated 09.01.2012, set aside the order of competent authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 23.03.2013 set aside the order of Collector. Respondent No.6 thereafter assailed the order passed by the Commissioner by way of W.P. No.4468/2013 on the ground that the order impugned is passed without summoning the original documents from the concerned School. This Court by order dated 22.11.2016, remitted the matter back to the Additional Commissioner to summon the records and after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the documents, take a final decision. Learned Additional Commissioner in compliance of the order, called the record and after perusal of the documents produced by B.D. Marko, an employee of the Office of Block Development Education Officer, dismissed the appeal.
Criticizing this order, it is submitted by Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.8420/2018 (Jyotsana Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) the Commissioner has sent the requisition for summoning the record but instead only one tabular sheet was produced by Shri B.D. Marko and considering that tabular sheet the Commissioner has held that the mark sheet (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner was forged. It is argued that in absence of original mark sheet, no finding regarding the genuinity of the mark sheet produced by the petitioner could have been given. It is further argued that even if the marks in the tabular sheet (Annexure P-2) is taken to be correct, the petitioner is still more meritorious than respondent No.6.
The fact that the record was not produced and the impugned order has been passed on the basis of tabular sheet (Annexure P-2) produced by B.D. Marko is not denied by Shri Gupta. However, he supports the impugned order. It is further argued that despite raising objection about petitioner's BPL card no finding in this regard has been given by the Commissioner.
Smt. Devika Singh Thakur, learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand has supported the impugned order. It is urged that the mark sheet filed alongwith the application 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.8420/2018 (Jyotsana Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) filed by the petitioner was found forged, hence no relief could be given to the petitioner even though her marks are more meritorious than the respondent No.6 as per the tabular chart.
It have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
The findings given by the learned Additional Commissioner in para 4 and 5 of the impugned order is reproduced herein under for ready reference :-
**eku~uh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk fn, x, vuqdze esa dqekjh T;ksRluk jko iq=h f'koizlkn jko ds }kjk d{kk 5 mRrh.kZ djusa laca/kh vfHkys[k izkIr djus gsrq ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh rFkk fodkl[k.M f'k{kk vf/kdkjh t;flaguxj dks fy[kk x;k Fkk A fodkl[k.M f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dk;kZy; ds deZpkjh Jh oh0Mh0 ekdksZ dks fjtYV lhV dh ewy izfr ds lkFk fnukad 10-01-2018 dks mifLFkr gq, A fjtYV lhV izLrqr djus ds laca/k esa Jh ekdksZ ds dFku fy;s x;s ftlesa mUgksaus crk;k fd ;g lgh gS fd o"kZ 2001 ds iwjs Cykd dk ijh{kkQy ugha yk;k gWwa A **;g lgh gS fd mDr ijh{kk Qy 2001 dks tks iLrqr fd;k gWwa A blds laca/k esa vU; dksbZ nLrkost dk;kZy; esa ugha gS A ;g lgh gS fd nkf[ky 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.8420/2018 (Jyotsana Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) [kkfjt jftLVj dk ewy dk;kZy; esa ugha fey jgk gS A tks izkFkfed f'k{kk cksMZ d{kk 5 dh n~f/krh; izfr dh Nk;k izfr is'k gS A mlesa o ijh{kk Qy esa fHkUurk gS A ;g lgh gS fd iwoZ ls izLrqr T;ksfrRluk jko dh izkFkfed ikB'kkyk dh vad lwph esa 93 izfr'kr gS A vkSj vkt esjs }kjk izLrqr ijh{kk Qy esa T;ksfrRluk jko dk izkFkfed ikB'kkyk dk ifj.kke 48 izfr'kr gS A ;g lgh gS fd T;ksfrRluk jko }kjk d{kk 5 dh vad lwph QthZ gks x;h gS A iwoZ esa izLrqr vad lwph esa tks d{kk 5 dh gS ml ij oh0vks0 ds gLrk{kj QthZ gSa A ;g dguk xyr gS fd vkt Hkh esjs }kjk tks ijh{kkQy izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A ml ij Hkh T;ksfrRluk jko ds uke xyr ntZ fd;k x;k gS A vkSj mlds izfr'kr Hkh c<+kdj ntZ fd;s x;s gSa A ;g lgh gS fd T;ksfrRluk jko ds ukuk [k.M f'k{kk dk;kZy; esa layXu Fks** Jh ekdksZ dk izfr ijh{k.k vihykFkhZ ,oa mRrjoknh nksuksa i{kksa ds vf/koDrkvksa }kjk fd;k x;k A Jh ekdksZ ds dFku o fd;s x;s izfr ijh{k.k ds voyksdu ls muds }kjk izLrqr ijh{kk ifj.kke i=d lansg ls ijs izekf.kr gksrk gS A blds lkFk mDr izkIr ijh{kk Qy o"kZ 2001 ds voyksdu ls ;g ik;k x;k fd dqekjh T;ksfrRluk jko dk uke mDr ijh{kk ifj.kke i=d esa dzekad 3 esa vafdr gS A rFkk mudk jksy ua0 24815 gS A mls ekr``Hkk"kk esa 48 xf.kr esa 52 i;kZoj.k 45 vad izkIr gq;s ftl dk ;ksx 145@300 gksrk gS A vaxzsth es 25 ds fo:) 18 vad izkIr gq;s gS A bl izdkj dqy 325 ds fo:) 163 vad izkIr gksdj muds izkIrkadksa dk izfr'kr 48 gksrk gS A ifj.kke i=d ij ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.8420/2018 (Jyotsana Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) 'kgMksy fodkl[k.M f'k{kk vf/kdkjh vuwiiqj] iz/kkuk/;kid ek/;fed 'kkyk fiijgk iksLV flaxjk fodkl[k.M vuwiiqj ftyk 'kgMksy ds lkFk d{kk v/;kid ds lkFk izfo"VdRrkZ ,oa tkapdrkZ ds gLrk{kj cus gq, gSa A rFkk mDr ifj.kke i=d vk;Z f'k'kq f'k{kk fudsru fodkl[k.M t;flag uxj ftyk 'kgMksy ls lacaf/kr gS A bl izdkj vihykUV T;ksRluk dks d{kk 5oha esa 48 izfr'kr vad izkIr gq, gSa A lR;dyk ds vf/koDrk dk dguk gS fd T;ksRluk ds }kjk QthZ vad lwph is'k dj fu;qfDr izkIr dh x;h gS A tks fLFkj ugha j[kk tk ldrk gS A T;ksRluk ds vf/koDrk dk dguk gS fd f'k{kk foHkkx 'kgMksy ds }kjk okafNr vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha djk;s x;s gSa A ysfdu tks vfHkys[k miyC/k djk;s x;s gSa mlesa T;ksRluk dks d{kk 5oha esa 48 izfr'kr vad izkIr gq, gSa A tks jsLik lR;dyk ls vf/kd gSa A 5- Li"V gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj vfHkys[kksa dk ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd T;ksRluk ds }kjk vkosnu i= ds lkFk QthZ dwVjfpr vadlwph layXu dh xbZ Fkh A ftlds vk/kkj ij mldk p;u gqvk Fkk A mls okLro esa d{kk 5ohsa dh ijh{kk esa 48 izfr'kr vad feys gSa A tcfd mlds }kjk 92 izfr'kr dh vadlwph vkosnu ds lkFk layXu dh xbZ Fkh A ftlds vk/kkj ij T;ksRluk dk p;u fd;k x;k Fkk A dysDVj ds }kjk izdj.k dk foLr``r foospuk ds vk/kkj ij dysDVj ftyk jhok ds izdj.k dzekad 272@v&89@vihy@2010&11 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09-01-2012 ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gS A vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gS A vkns'k ikfjr ,oa ?kksf"kr A i{kdkj lwfpr gks A 7 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.8420/2018 (Jyotsana Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fjdkMZ vkns'k izfr ds lkFk okil gks A izdj.k lekIr gksdj nkf[ky fjdkMZ gks A** gLrk{kj@&28-03-18 ¼e/kqdj vXus;½ vij vk;qDr jhok laHkkx jhok I find force in the arguments of Shri Kochar that in absence of original documents and without comparing with the original documents, the tabular sheet could not have been considered and the mark sheet produced by the petitioner, on its basis cannot be declared forged. Hence, the impugned order dated 28.03.2018 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Commissioner to summon the original record relating to the qualification as well as the Ration Card etc. and thereafter take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 60 days. Till fresh decision is made, parties to maintain status-quo.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.
(Nandita Dubey) Judge gn Digitally signed by GEETHA NAIR Date: 2019.03.14 11:45:18 +05'30'