Devki Bai Choudhary vs Project Officer And Others

Heard on the question of admission.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 28.07.2017 (Annexure-P/8)

passed by the Collector, District Narsinghpur as also the order dated 09.05.2019 (Annexure-P/12) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur

Division, Jabalpur.

As per the facts of the case, a provisional selection list for the post of Aaganwadi Worker in respect of center situated at Village Budhwara,

Janpad Panchayat, Chawarpatha, Tehsil and District Narsinghpur was published on 23.09.2014, in which, objections were invited within a period of

seven days and thereafter, a final select list was published placing respondent No.6 at serial No.1 as she was found meritorious and secured 53.22

marks. The present petitioner was placed at serial No.2 as she secured 45.33 marks. The appointment order was accordingly issued in favour of

respondent No.6 on 05.06.2015 but vide order dated 18.04.2016 passed by respondent No.1, the appointment order of respondent No.6 was cancelled

because the present petitioner raised an objection before the Collector in a public hearing and the Collector on a public hearing, instructed respondent

No.1 to conduct an enquiry as the petitioner raised an objection before the Collector that being a meritorious candidate, she was not appointed and a

candidate securing less marks than that of the petitioner, was given appointment. The Project Officer, thereafter, passed an order on 18.04.2016

(Annexure-P/5) issued appointment order in favour of the petitioner and also informed respondent No.6 that pursuant to a complaint made by the

petitioner before the Collector, alleging that the BPL card of respondent No.6 was prepared after the completion of selection process, therefore, 10

marks of BPL was wrongly been granted to respondent No.6. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.6 submitted her reply to the objection before the

Project Officer on 05.01.2016 (Annexure-P/4) stating therein that even on the date of issuance of final list i.e. on 23.09.2014, no objection was raised

by the petitioner though time was granted for submitting an objection and in absence of any such objection, only because the petitioner has raised her

objection before the Collector that too in a public hearing, such objection should not have been entertained and her appointment cannot be cancelled.

She has also stated in the said reply that her BPL card was prepared prior to the date of selection.

Considering the action of respondent No.1, as he issued the order of appointment in favour of the petitioner, an appeal was preferred by respondent

No.6 before the Collector and the Collector vide order dated 28.07.2017, allowed the same restoring the earlier position appointing respondent No.6 on

the post of Aaganwadi Worker. The Collector not only considered the objection regarding inclusion of name of respondent No.6 in the BPL list but

also considered the legal aspect of the matter as to whether, the Project Officer has any right to pass any order in pursuance to the objection raised by

the petitioner in a public hearing. As per the order of the Collector, guidelines have been issued by the State Government on 10.07.2017 in which

procedure for appointment, selection and remedies, if any dispute arises, has been prescribed. In the said Circular, procedure prescribed as to how and

in what manner, a person not appointed for the post of Aaganwadi Worker can raise an objection. The said Circular further provides that an appeal

can be made before the Collector raising grievance in respect of appointment to the post of Aaganwadi Worker and thereafter, the order of Collector

can also be assailed by filing the second appeal before the Commissioner. The Collector in its order has very categorically considered this aspect and

found that the objection raised by the petitioner in a public hearing that too after almost one year of conclusion of proceedings regarding appointment

of Aaganwadi Worker, therefore, the said objection was to be raised either before the competent authority or before the competent Court but that

cannot be raised by moving a simple objection before the authority in a public hearing. It is also observed by the Collector that once a decision has

been taken by the Appellate Committee considering the objection raised in respect of appointment and thereafter, appointment order had been issued

then there was no reason for respondent No.1 i.e. the Project Officer to reconsider or to reopen the matter regarding appointment on the post

Aaganwadi Worker and as such, the said proceedings have been considered by the Collector as void. The Collector has also considered the objection

regarding inclusion of name of respondent No.6 in the BPL list and as per the Collector, the name of Thakur Das Rajak, the husband of respondent

No.6 was shown in BPL list at two places i.e. at serial No.176 as also on serial No.876. Thereafter, the Tehsildar, Gadarwara vide order dated

20.04.2016 has directed to delete the name of Thakur Das Rajak from serial No.176 but directed to maintain his name which was recorded in the year

2014 at serial No.876 meaning thereby, on the date of selection, the name of the petitioner was there in the BPL list and it was deleted only w.e.f.

07.01.2016. Accordingly, the Collector has found that the reasons assigned by the Project Officer was without any foundation and accordingly, the

Collector allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.6 and her appointment was directed to be continued as she was selected on the said post.

Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur and the same was

also dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2019. The Commissioner has also taken note of the fact regarding inclusion of name of respondent No.6 in the

BPL list and also affirmed the finding given by the Collector. Accordingly, the said finding is a finding of fact and as such, the same objection as has

been raised by the petitioner in this petition cannot be entertained unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that such finding is perverse.

The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has drawn attention of this Court towards the report (Annexure-P/10) of the

Project Officer which he submitted in view of the instructions issued by the Additional Commissioner and the same was undated but the month of

September, 2018 has been mentioned in the said report. This report reveals that the Project Officer has given a finding that respondent No.6 on being

asked to supply the correct information, failed to supply the same and, therefore, it is presumed that her name has been included after selection

process is over. The petitioner by drawing attention of this Court towards the said report seeking quashment of the order of the Commissioner saying

that the finding given by the Commissioner is contrary to the report.

However, from a bare perusal of the report, I am of the opinion that the said report cannot be given any weightage for the reason that the Project

Officer has not made any efforts by its own to collect the correct information regarding inclusion of name of respondent No.6 in the BPL list but he

asked respondent No.6 to submit the correct information. If the same was not submitted by her, it was the duty of the Project Officer to make

necessary enquiry in this regard but that was not done and he proceeded with presumption. Accordingly, such report cannot be considered to be

genuine one as also a base for setting aside the well reasoned order of the Collector as well as the Commissioner.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the Collector has given a specific finding that the objection raised by the petitioner regarding

appointment of respondent No.6 was not raised before the appropriate forum and the Project Officer after lapse of almost one year, passed the order

cancelling the appointment of respondent No.6 and the same is not justified and as such, in an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the

Commissioner in which, the Commissioner affirmed the finding given by the Collector saying that the proceedings initiated by the Project Officer and

also the order passed by him are illegal. I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner are well reasoned and

based upon the material available on record. Thus, this petition is without any substance and even the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to

demonstrate as to in what manner, the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the well reasoned orders which are

impugned in this petition.

Resultantly, the petition filed by the petitioner being without any substance, is hereby dismissed.