High CourtsDivision Bench

Anju Mishra vs State Of M.P. And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 15 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 MP CK 0140

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Yadav, J · Vijay Kumar Shukla, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Madhy Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 — Section 2(1)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No. 587 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

48 paragraphs · 985 words

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J

1.

Hearing convened through video conferencing.

2.

The present intra-court appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal)

Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 13-03-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.18509/2012 [Ku. Madhu Gupta vs.

Smt. Anju Mishra and others], whereby the order dated 5-6-2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa has been set aside

and the order dated 24-01-2012 passed by the Collector, Rewa has been restored.

3.

The facts of the case adumbrated in a nutshell, are that an advertisement for recruitment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta for Ward No.13,

Centre Nehru Nagar, District Rewa was published in the year 2009, wherein the present appellant as well as the respondents No.3 and 4 had

participated. The appellant was placed at Sr. No.1 in the select list and she was offered appointment. The appointment of the appellant was

challenged by the respondent No.3 before the Collector, Rewa, who vide order dated 24-01-2012 had set aside the appointment of the appellant

primarily on the ground that she had applied for the appointment at two places stating two different addresses in two different applications. The

Collector, Rewa granted appointment to the respondent No.3 in the light of the fact that the respondent No.4 did not require the post.

4.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, Rewa, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division,

Rewa which was allowed and the order passed by the Collector, Rewa was set aside. Being dissatisfied by the order passed by the Additional

Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, the respondent No.3 invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court inW .P. No.18509/2012 which has been

allowed by the impugned order.

5.

The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the appellant had not submitted

any application for Angwanwadi Centre, Jarkatti, Tehsil Mauganj, District Rewa. The copy of the application which was placed on record, was not

signed by the appellant herein. It is strenuously that the learned Single Judge has erred while holding that the appellant is not a local resident of Ward

No.13, Nehru Nagar, Rewa and the writ-petitioner, the respondent No.3 was a resident of Ward No.13, Nehru Nagar, Rewa.

6.

The learned counsel for the appellant supported the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa and stated that he has

rightly noted the grounds of the appellant and given a clear finding that the appellant is a resident of Ward No.13, Nehru Nagar, Rewa. As per the

scheme of the appointment of Anganwadi Workers issued by the State Government residential proof of a candidate has to be determined - whether

the name of the candidate finds mention in the voters list of the respective centre. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner has rightly held that the

appellant is a resident of Ward No.13, Nehru Nagar, District Rewa, considering all the documents and the voters list as well. It is also urged that the

Collector, Rewa vide order dated 24-01-2012 had incorrectly interfered with the offer of appointment of the appellant without considering the

aforesaid aspects.

7.

The learned Single Judge after considering the documents brought on record, has recorded thefinding that an application was submitted by the

appellant for Anganwadi Centre Jarkatti, Tehsil Mauganj, District Rewa and the writ-petitioner had also submitted an application for Anganwadi

Centre, Ward No.13, Nehru Nagar, District Rewa. In order to prove the fact of domicile certificate, the petitioner enclosed a document showing her

domicile of the said Ward. She had filed a local resident certificate which has been brought on record as Annexure-R-2 at page No.73. In the said

certificate the details which have been furnished by the petitioner showing her to be Ku. Anju Mishra daughter of Vasudeo Mishra and the address of

Nehru Nagar, Rewa was given therein. The certificate was issued on 31-7-2002 and very conveniently the appellant did not furnish the details in the

said form regarding her marriage and the residence of her husband.

The another application which is on record, is the application submitted by the appellant in respect of Anganwadi Centre, Jarkatti which is appended as

Annexure-P/8. The said form is filled up by the appellant giving her details as Smt. Anju Pandey wife of Shfi Dilip Pandey. The address in the said

form is mentioned of Village Jarkati, Post - Kasiargaon, District Rewa. The said form was duly accepted by the Project Officer. There was no

specific denial from the appellant that she had not submitted the application for the Anganwadi Centre, Jarkatti, Tehsil Mauganj, District Rewa.

8.

On due consideration of facts and record the learned Single Judge held that the appellant was not a resident of Ward No.13, Nehru Nagar, Rewa

and, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa was quashed and the order of the Collector, Rewa setting

aside the appointment of the appellant and directing for appointment of the writ petitioner, Ku. Madhu Gupta, the respondent No.3 herein in the appeal,

was restored. An application preferred by the appellant for dismissal of the writ petition having rendered infructuous, was also considered and decided

by the learned Single Judge. Merely because the writ petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Assistant in the Anganwadi Centre, Ward No.13,

Nehru Nagar, Rewa, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petition would not become infructuous, as it would be for the writ petitioner either to

work on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta or Anganwadi Assistant.

9.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not perceive any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting any interference

in the present intra-court appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal being sans merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Â