Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Pushpa Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 W.P.No.3610/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 28th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 3610 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SMT. PUSHPA AHIRWAR W/O PRABHU DAYAL
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED VILLAGE
PAHADI TILWARA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIL LALA- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
SECRETARY MAHILA EVAM BAL VIKASH
FEMALE EVAM CHILD DEVELOPMET
DEPARTMENT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER SAGAR DIVISION
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR TIKAMGARH TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PARIYOJNA ADHIKARI EKIKRAT BAL
VIKAS PARIYOJNA TIKAMGARH
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT. GAURA DEWI AHIRWAR W/O
RAJESH AHIRWAR VILLAGE PAHADI
TILWARAN TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ROHIT JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 1 TO
4/STATE, SHRI RAHUL RAWAT - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5 )
.........................................................................................................
2 W.P.No.3610/2020
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in Appeal No.667/Appeal/A-89/2019-20 by which the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Kendra Village Pahadi Tilwaran, Tehsil and District Tikamgarh has been rejected and the respondent No.5 has been directed to be appointed.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition in short are that an advertisement was issued for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Kendra Village Pahadi Tilwaran, Tehsil and District Tikamgarh. Total six persons including the petitioner and respondent No.5 applied for the said post. Merit list was prepared. One Pooja Ahirwar was placed at serial No.1 but since her certificate(s) were/was found to be fake, therefore, the order of appointment of Rajabeti Ahirwar was issued on 19.04.2018. It appears that Rajabeti Ahirwar refused to join and submitted her resignation in the form of an affidavit dated 28.04.2018 on the ground that she is a student of B.A. Final Year and is making preparation for competitive examination and thus, she would not be in a position to discharge her duties and therefore, she is not interested in serving. Thereafter, the cases of the candidates, who were in the merit list were considered. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 were not awarded 10 marks for holding BPL card. The petitioner preferred an appeal before Collector, Tikamgarh, which was allowed by order dated 30.09.2019 passed in 3 W.P.No.3610/2020 case No.199/Appeal/2017-18 and the order dated 10.05.2018 issued by Project Officer, Integrated Child Welfare Project, Tikamgarh (Rural) was set aside and it was directed that order of appointment in favour of the petitioner be issued.
3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, Tikamgarh, the respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar. By the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar has held that since the BPL card issued in favour of the petitioner/her husband was cancelled, therefore, she was not entitled for 10 marks for holding BPL card and thus, the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by Project Officer, Integrated Child Welfare Project, Tikamgarh, was restored and order dated 30.09.2019 passed by Collector, District Tikamgarh was set aside.
4. Challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on the last date for submission of the application form, the petitioner had relied upon a BPL card. The said BPL card was intact even on the date of consideration. However, it appears that by order dated 24.02.2018, it was directed to delete the name of the husband of the petitioner from the list of BPL card holder. It is submitted that against the said order, an appeal was filed, which was dismissed by SDO, Tikamgarh by order dated 21.05.2018.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the husband of the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal, which was registered as case No.250/Appeal/2017-18 and Additional Collector, Tikamgarh by order dated 29.09.2018 allowed the appeal and the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by SDO, Tikamgarh in case No.220/Appeal/2017-18 was set 4 W.P.No.3610/2020 aside and the deletion of the name of the husband of the petitioner was also set aside. As a result thereof, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner continued to remain in the list of BPL card holder and thus, she was rightly granted 10 marks for the same.
6. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.5 that the respondent No.5 had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar thereby relying upon the documents supplied to one Rajesh Kumar Ahirwar as well as to Tahsildar, Tahsil Tikamgarh to the effect that the name of Prabhu Dayal was not found in the BPL card of the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 and thus, the Additional Commissioner has rightly held that the petitioner was rightly denied 10 marks for holding the BPL card.
7. It is further submitted that the order dated 29.09.2018 passed by Additional Collector, District Tikamgarh in case No.250/Appeal/2017- 18 by which the order deleting the name of the husband of the petitioner from the list of BPL card holders was set aside, was never placed before the Commissioner, therefore, the same may not be considered.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The only controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for 10 marks being the holder of BPL card or not?
10. Undisputedly, on the last date for submission of application form, the petitioner had a live BPL card. According to the petitioner, even on the date of consideration of the candidature, the BPL card of the petitioner was live. However at a later stage by order dated 24.02.2018 passed by Naib Tahsildar, Circle Samarra, Tehsil and District Tikamgarh in case No.110/B-121/17-18 the name of the husband of the 5 W.P.No.3610/2020 petitioner was deleted from the list of BPL card holders. However, the order of deletion of the name of the husband of the petitioner from list of BPL card holders was ultimately set aside by order dated 29.09.2018 in case No.250/Appeal/2017-18. Undisputedly, this order has never been challenged by any of the party. Thus, it is clear that the controversy, which arose for the time being with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioner was the holder of BPL card or not came to rest by order dated 29.09.2018 passed by Additional Collector, Tikamgarh and the name of the husband of the petitioner was restored back in the list of BPL card holders. As already pointed out even on the last date for submission of application forms as well as even on the date of consideration of the application forms, the petitioner had a live BPL card. The BPL card held by the petitioner had lost its life for a limited period. However, the original BPL card stood revived by order dated 29.09.2018 passed by Additional Collector, Tikamgarh. Whether the aforesaid order was before the Commissioner or not important because the petitioner has specifically relied upon the order dated 29.09.2018 passed by Additional Collector, District Tikamgarh in the present writ petition and the respondent No.5 has not responded to the said contention in her return.
11. Under these circumstances, when the BPL card of the petitioner stood revived and even on the last date of submission of application as well as on the date of consideration of the application, the petitioner had a live BPL card, this Court is of the considered opinion that she was rightly awarded 10 marks for holding a BPL card.
12. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sager in Appeal 6 W.P.No.3610/2020 No.667/Appeal/A-89/2019-20 is hereby set aside. The order of Collector, District Tikamgarh dated 30.09.2019 passed in case No.199/Appeal/2017-18 is hereby restored.
13. The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shanu Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2023.06.28 17:15:28 +05'30'