Shalini Agrawal vs Mamta Ahirwar& Others

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged order dated 20th June 2017 passed by Collector setting aside the appointment order of petitioner as Anganwadi karyakarta. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 5/4/2018 passed by Commissioner whereby the Collector's order has been affirmed.

Brief facts are that advertisement dated 13th October 2016 was published for appointment on the post of Anganwadi karyakarta in Dhuma Anganwadi Kendra 8 & 9. Last date of submission of application was 27/10/2016 and total 31 applications were received. The first candidate in the select list had not joined therefore, the petitioner who was at serial no. 2 had become eligible for appointment. The objections to the provisional list were invited and these objections were decided by District Objection Committee and thereafter the order dated 4th February 2017 was passed appointing petitioner as Anganwadi karyakarta Dhuma Center No. 8. This order was challenged by respondent no.1 before Collector and Collector by the impugned order dated 20th June 2017 had allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment order of petitioner. Aggrieved with the same, petitioner had filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner which has been dismissed by order dated 5/4/2018.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent no.1 had not raised objection against provisional list within 7 days and that petitioner was holding valid BPL card on the date of submission of her application therefore, the subsequent action of cancellation of BPL card will not affect petitioner's appointment.

As against this learned counsel for respondents have supported the impugned order.

Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that in the provisional select list one Rakhi Ahirwar had obtained 67.77% marks and petitioner was placed at serial no. 2 by obtaining 58.77% marks. Respondent no. 1 herein had obtained 54.11% marks. Undisputedly the marks which were awarded to petitioner were including the marks on the basis of BPL card submitted by her.

The record reflects that a complaint was made against BPL Card of petitioner's husband which was used by petitioner to obtain employment. On that complaint, a three member committee was appointed and committee had submitted report before the Sub Divisional Officer. Sub Divisional Officer thereafter had passed the order dated 2/6/2017 taking note of the report of the committee wherein it was found that petitioner's husband Dharmendra Agrawal is BEMS doctor and is doing the private practise at Dhuma and is from an affluent family. The report also mentions that petitioner's mother-in-law is Anganwadi karyakarta since before and inspite of this petitioner's husband by furnishing misleading and fabricated information had fraudulently obtained the BPL Card. The Sub Divisional Officer after considering the report and the statement and affidavit of concerned parties, the original record and reply, has found that petitioner's husband did not fulfill the criteria for obtaining the BPL card as he does not fall in the BPL Category. Accordingly the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 2/6/2017 has cancelled the BPL Card of petitioner's husband.

Nothing has been pointed out by counsel for petitioner to show that the order of the Sub Divisional Officer has been challenged any further. Hence the said order has now attained finality.

The Collector in the impugned order dated 5/4/2018 has taken note of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer cancelling BPL card and has rightly directed to prepare the fresh seniority list by reducing 10 marks which were awarded under BPL category.

The record further reflects that the District Level Objection Committee before verification of the BPL card by the competent authority/Sub Divisional Officer had taken a decision to reject the objection. It has also been noted by Commissioner that District Level Objection Committee had rejected the objection even without signature or approval of the Collector or his representative Additional Collector.

So far as the arguments advanced by counsel for petitioner that no objection to the provisional list was raised within 7 days is concerned, the record reflects that no such issue or argument was advanced by petitioner at any stage before the Collector or Additional Commissioner.

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the Collector and Additional Commissioner do not suffer from any error.

Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the Single Bench judgement of this court in the matter of Smt. Satyabhama Choudhary Vs. State of MP and others dated 13/4/2018 passed in WP No. 5582/2017 but in that case it was found that the ration card was issued by the competent authority and same did not suffer from any error, hence benefit was extended.

Similarly the order dated 16/3/2018 Annexure P-12 relied upon by counsel for petitioner is of no help to him because that was issued in respect of some other case on different facts situation wherein the BPL card was not found to be fraudulently obtained.

Hence I do not find any merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.