Pushpendra Armil vs State of M.P.

The present intra Court appeal filed under Section 2(i) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order dated 23.02.2017passed in WP No. 2674/2013 by the writ Court dismissing the challenge of the appellant, denying appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker on the ground of petitioner not being permanent resident of the village where the Anganwadi Kendra in question was situated. However, the writ court disposed of the petition by holding that Collector ought not to have directly issued order of appointment in favour of respondent No.6 but should have left it for the Project Officer to conduct enquiry in regard to eligibility of all the candidates including respondent No.6. After recording the said finding the writ Court has partially allowed the petition by remitting the matter to the Project Officer with the direction that out of the provisional select list as was prepared for Village Manepura, Tehsil Ater, District Bhind, the Project Officer after deleting the name of the petitioner shall consider eligibility and suitability of other candidates and pass order of appointment of Anganwadi Worker after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing within three months.

Learned counsel counsel the petitioner / appellant contends that writ Court misdirected itself by holding that petitioner is not a resident of the village concerned merely because she was married.

A bare perusal of the order of Collector dated 17.09.2012 (Annexure P/2) reflects in para four that the executive instructions dated 10.07.2017 of the Ministry of Women and Child Development clarify the eligibility clause a-1 (2) of the guidelines contained in the

scheme that in case of unmarried woman the name of father should be mentioned whereas in case of married woman the name of husband should be mentioned along with the permanent address of the father / husband. Meaning thereby that for ascertaining the permanent residence clause, the disclosure and document revealing the permanent address of the father of unmarried woman candidate and of the husband of a married woman candidate would be considered while considering the candidature. 3.1 It is not disputed that petitioner / appellant got married in 2004 whereas advertisement in question was issued in 2007 and therefore, it was obligatory for the petitioner / appellant to have disclosed the permanent address of her husband which she failed to do. Instead the appellant disclosed the permanent address of her father, who happened to reside at the village where the Anganwadi centre in question was situated.

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the writ Court. Consequently, the impugned order of the writ court is upheld. The present appeal deserves to be and is therefore rejected.

The private respondent and the State of M.P. is entitled to a cost of Rs. 2000/- each as litigation cost to be paid by appellant within ninety (90) days.