Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Krishna Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 August, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 11548/2018
Smt. Krishna Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others
Gwalior, 09/08/2018
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri N.S. Kirar, learned Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
Shri Dharmendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No. 6/Caveator.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
Affirmation of an order dated 27/06/2016 passed in Appeal cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarta at Village Chaprent, Gram Panchayat Chentikheda, Tahsil Vijaypur, District Sheopur, by the Additional Commissioner, Second Appellate Authority on 18/01/2018 has led the petitioner file this petition challenging the order.
Relevant facts briefly are that, in furtherance to the advertisement for appointment of said Anganwadi Karyakarta, 07 candidates applied for the post. Of whom, 06 candidates including respondent No. 6 were found ineligible, either not possessing requisite educational qualification or were not resident of the village. As a result whereof, the petitioner who was 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11548/2018 Smt. Krishna Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others found eligible was appointed by order dated 24/09/2015. The petitioner gave her joining on 03/10/2015. The appointment was challenged by respondent No. 6 before the Additional Collector, Sheopur, wherein various grounds were raised including that, the petitioner is not a permanent resident of village Chaprent and that respondent No. 6 had duly passed the Higher Secondary Examination from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. The Appellate Authority, as evident from the order dated 07/06/2016 took into consideration only the issue as to the educational qualification of respondent No. 6. It observed:-
"ewy izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA mHk;i{k ds rdksZ ij fopkj fd;k x;kA xSjvihykFkhZ Øekad 02 ds dk;kZy; esa vkaxuckM+h dsUnz pijsaV esa vkxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ in gsrq Jherh jkenqykjh vkfnoklh] Jherh d`".kk ikjk'kj] Jherh v:.kk flag] Jherh ek;korh dq'kokg] Jherh lksukckbZ] Jherh lquhrk /kkdM+ ,oa Jherh eaxs'k }kjk vkosnu izLrqr fd;s x;sA vihykFkhZ ek;korh }kjk vius vkosnu esa gk;j lsd.Mjh ;ksX;rk cksMZ vkWQ gk;j lsd.Mjh fnYyh o"kZ 2012 izkIrkad 353@500 ¼70-6 izfr'kr½ mYysf[kr dh xbZ gSA vkosnu ds lkFk ifjf'k"V 2 esa vuqyXudksa dh lwph izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlesa gk;j lsd.Mjh ijh{kk dh ekdZ'khV dh lR; izfr ij lgh dk fu'kku yxk;k x;k gSa ftldh i`"B dzekad 41 ij vadlwph dh lR;kfir Nk;kizfr layXu ikbZ xbZ gSA xSjvihykFkhZ dzekad 02 ds }kjk vihykFkhZ ds vkosnu ,oa mlds lkFk layXu 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds izek.k i=ksa dh miyC/krk dh vuns[kh dj vihykFkhZ ds uke ds le{k fu/kkZfjr 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11548/2018 Smt. Krishna Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk u gksus ls vik= ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA xSjvihykFkhZ dzekad 02 ds }kjk vuafre lwph dc izdkf'kr dh xbZ ,oa dgkW izdkf'kr dh xbZ] bldk dksbZ mYys[k uLrh esa vafdr gksuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA vuafre lwph ij p;u lfefr ds nks egRoiw.kZ lnL;ksa eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r fot;iqj ,oa lHkkifr LokLF; ,oa efgyk cky lfefr ds gLrk{kj gksuk ugha ik;k x;kA vihykFkhZ ds vad 353@500 ¼70- 6izfr'kr½ tcfd xSjvihykFkhZ dzekad 01 ds vad 310@500 ¼62 izfr'kr½ FksA Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ ds 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds vad xSjvihykFkhZ dzekad 01 ls vf/kd FksA xSjvihykFkhZ dzekad 02 ds }kjk vkosnuksa dk ijh{k.k leqfpr lrZdrk ls ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls vihykFkhZ dh gk;j lsd.Mjh dh vadlwph fu;qfDr izfdz;k ds fopkj.k esa ugha yh xbZ gS tks xSj vihykFkhZ dzekad 02 ds }kjk dh xbZ xaHkhj ykijokgh dks mtkxj djrh gS ftlls vihykFkhZ dh vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% vihykFkhZ dh vihy Lohdkj dj xSjvihykFkhZ dzekad 01 dh vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ ds in ij xzke pijsaV esa dh xbZ fu;qfDr dk vkns'k fnukad 24-09-2015 fujLr dh tkrh gS rFkk izdj.k bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gS fd vihyFkhZ dh gk;j lsd.Mjh dh vadlwph dks fopkj.k esa ysdj iqu% vuafre lwph rS;kj dj nkos vkifRr vkeaf=r fd;s tk;sa rFkk fu;qfDr fnukad 24-09-2015 ds iwoZ dh frfFk ij vkosndksa ds xzke pijsaV ds fuoklh gksus ds rF; dh tkWp dj iqu% p;u lfefr u;s fljs ls fu;qfDr vkns'k leLr fu;e ,oa izfØ;kvksa dk ikyu dj tkjh djsaA "
The marksheet presented by respondent issued by the Board of Higher Secondary Delhi was directed to be taken into consideration while determining her eligibility. In appeal the order was affirmed by the impugned order.
In this fact situation the issue which arises for consideration is whether it was just and proper for 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11548/2018 Smt. Krishna Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others Authorities concern to have acknowledge the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education Delhi to confer eligibility to respondent No.6.
The relevant clause which lays down eligibility criteria is clause v-1(3) of the circular No. F. 3- 2/06/50-2 dated 10/07/2007 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh through its Department of Women & Child Development, which stipulates:-
"¼3½ 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk& uxjh; ,oa lkekU; xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa efgyk vH;FkhZ vfuok;Zr% gk;j lsds.Mjh ¼10$2 dh cksMZ vFkok 11 oha cksMZ½ mRrh.kZ gksuk pkfg;sA vkfnoklh {ks= esa efgyk vH;FkhZ vfuok;Zr% U;wure vkBoh d{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk pkfg,A"
Thus incumbent it is for the candidate to have passed Higher Secondary (10+2 Board or 11th Board). That a list of approved Higher Secondary Board (10+2) in India is filed by the petitioner stating that the Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi is not recognized to the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education. These contentions, however, are belied by the contents of the list filed as Annexure P/15 wherein at Serial No. 11 is mentioned Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi and at Serial 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11548/2018 Smt. Krishna Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others No. 15 is Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has not commended at any cogent material to establish that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi is not recognized by the Board of Higher Secondary, Madhya Pradesh.
In view whereof, non-consideration of the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Delhi in favour of respondent No. 6, was rightly found fault with by the Appellate Authority, as would warrant an indulgence.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) Judge shubh* Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2018.08.16 17:49:32 +05'30'