Smt. Rannu Gupta vs State of MP and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 6-7-2013 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 29-8-2011 passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby the respondent No. 5 has been appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Ward No. 9, Naigarhi, Tahsil Mauganj, District Rewa, by setting aside the order in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the documents relating to the cancellation of ration card, Annexure P-14, dated 14-9-2007, though on record has not been considered by either of the authorities which clearly establishes the fact that the respondent No. 5 is not a permanent resident of Ward No. 9, Naigarhi but is in fact resident of Mangawan. It is submitted that though this Court had directed the authorities to look into all the documents, they have not done so and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after a perusal of the record it is observed that the present petition relates to appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in Ward No. 9, Naigarhi, Tahsil Mauganj, District Rewa. It is also clear that on the proceedings being taken up by the authorities the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker of Ward No. 9, Naigarhi, Tahsil Mauganj, District Rewa, being aggrieved by which the respondent No. 5 had filed an appeal before the Collector, Rewa which was dismissed on 7-10-2009. It is also clear that the respondent No. 5 being aggrieved thereafter filed a writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 10786/2009(S) which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 13-11-2009 with the direction to the Collector, Rewa to re-examine the matter keeping in mind all the documents relating to the residence of the parties and take a fresh decision in the matter. It is also observed that pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court the Collector again took up the matter and directed the project officer of the Integrated Child Development Project, Naigarhi, to make an enquiry in the matter and submit a report regarding residence of the parties.

From a perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa as well as the Collector, Rewa it is apparent that the report submitted by the project officer has been extensively discussed and considered by both the authorities in their orders and both the authorities have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the husband of the respondent No. 5 is permanent resident of Ward No. 9, Naigarhi and while doing so the authorities have taken into consideration the fact that the project officer has found that the ancestral house of Amritlal Soni, husband of respondent No. 5 is situated in Ward No. 9, Naigarhi and have also taken into consideration the fact that Amritlal Soni was blessed with a son who has been issued a birth certificate indicating that the child was born in Ward No. 9, Naigarhi on 31-9-2008. The authorities have also taken into consideration the record of Case No. 1271/B-121/2006-2007 that was taken up by the Naib Tahsildar, Naigarhi who had passed an order therein dated 3-8-2007 wherein it was found that the certificate of local resident was rightly issued to the husband of the respondent No. 5 wherein he was shown to be resident of Ward No. 9, Naigarhi.

It is also apparent from a perusal of the order that the authorities while arriving at the aforesaid finding have also taken into consideration Annexure P-14 dated 14-9-2007 which is an order of cancellation of ration card and while doing so the authorities have taken note of the fact that the ration card was cancelled on the report submitted by one Riyazuddin Khan, Nakedar, whose report in fact indicates that the ration card was correct. The Collector and the Commissioner in their orders have also recorded a finding to the effect that in view of the documents on record it is clear that the cancellation of ration card of the husband of the respondent No. 5 by order dated 14.9.2007 was in fact incorrect as he is permanent resident of Ward No. 9, Naigarhi.

From a perusal of the aforesaid it is clear that the concurrent finding of fact in respect of residence of the respondent No. 5 has rightly been recorded by the Collector and Commissioner in the impugned orders after proper assessment and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record and this Court does not find any irregularity or manifest illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference of this Court. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed.