Dayaram vs State of M.P.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Commissioner/ Respondent No.2 whereby the order dated 10.1.2011 passed by the respondent No.3/Collector has been reversed and the order passed by the Collector appointing the petitioner on the post of Aaganwadi Worker at Gram Sihouliya has been set aside and the respondent No.6 has been appointed in place of the petitioner.

In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondents No.6 & 7 had participated in the recruitment for the post of Aaganwadi Worker for Aaganwadi Centre Sihoulya Tahsil Sihawal District Sidhi.

The contention of the petitioner is that she belongs to Below Poverty Line (BPL) regarding which a certificate was also issued on 13.8.2009 by the Project Officer/respondent No.4, whereas the respondent No.6 has also submitted certificate regarding her BPL status for which she got 10 marks over and above, and on the basis of the same, she was got selected as Aaganwadi Worker. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the respondent No.6, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector/respondent No.3 on the ground that the respondent No.6 has wrongly been given BPL benefit as the BPL card itself is false and therefore she is not entitled to get 10 marks for the same.

The Collector/respondent No.3 after going through the documents adduced by the parties, passed the dated 10.1.2011 in favour of the petitioner by holding that the BPL Card issued to the respondent No.6 was not in accordance with law and also that at the time of submitting the application, the respondent No.6 was aged below 18 years hence she was not entitled to be appointed. The said order of the Collector was challenged by the respondent No.6 before the Commissioner, who vide its order dated 26.4.2011 has set aside the order of the Collector and the appointment of the respondent No.6 has been maintained.

The contention of the petitioner is that in the preliminary list, the respondent No.6-Gayatri Devi got 42.4 marks, whereas the petitioner-Sheela got 37.65 marks. The Collector found that respondent No.6-Gayatri has been given the benefit of BPL category on account of certificate issued by the Tahsildar Sihouliya on 17.08.2009 whereas her husband Gopal Sharan Dwivedi has been awarded the BPL category only on 14.09.2009 so there was no occasion for the respondent No.6 Gayatri to get a BPL card on 17.08.2009 and on that basis the objection raised by the petitioner has been accepted by the Collector that the name of respondent No.6- Gayatri in the BPL list has wrongly been included on the ground that in Case No.424/B-121/08-09 the application filed by Gopal Sharan Dwivedi, the husband of respondent No.6 was accepted on 14.9.2009, whereas the BPL card submitted by the respondent No.6-Gayatri reveals that the same was issued on 12.8.2009, and the application for the post of Aaganwadi Worker was to be submitted in the office upto 17.8.2009. Thus, when the BPL card was issued to the husband of the petitioner on 14.9.2009, as such on 17.8.2009 i.e. the date of application the respondent No.6 could not have been given the benefit of BPL card which was given to her on 12.8.2009 and therefore if the aforesaid 10 marks obtained by the respondent No.6 is deducted from her entire marks 42.4, then it comes to 32.4 marks which are less than 37.65 marks obtained by the petitioner.

In the present case, neither the respondent No.6 nor the State has filed reply despite many opportunities, hence after considering the documents available on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the Collector was in line with the documents filed on record, and it appears that proper appreciation of the same has not been done by the Additional Commissioner. It is apparent from the record that the Collector in his order dated 10.01.2011 has given a categorical finding that the age of respondent No.6- Gayatri Devi was below 18 years as on 01.01.2009 hence also she is not entitled for the appointment on the post Aaganwadi Worker but this finding has not even been touched by the learned Commissioner and hence the same is binding on the parties as there is no appeal by the respondent No.6-Gayatri so far as the said finding is concerned.

The conclusion of the learned Commissioner that how the Collector has recorded the finding that the BPL card of the petitioner was issued on 14.09.2009 is also erroneous because the Collector has recorded the said finding on the basis of the BPL card issued to the husband of the petitioner on 14.09.2009 which is also on record and is filed as Annexure P/6 with the writ petition. Thus, the finding recorded by learned Commissioner is erroneous and is liable to be quashed.

In the result, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby set aside, and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with effect from the date she first became eligible for the same with all the consequential benefits.