Smt. Sonam Sikarwar vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders, Annexures P-1 and P-3. The petitioner and private respondents submitted their candidature for the post of Aganwadi Worker. By order dated 21.9.2011 the private respondent No. 4 was appointed as Aganwadi Worker. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector. The Collector by order dated 21.5.2012 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of respondent No. 4 herein. The respondent No. 4, in turn, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which was registered as Case No. 140/2011-12 Appeal, which was decided on 19.8.2012. The Commissioner after hearing the parties, restored the order of appointment and set aside the order of the Collector. The singular point on which interference was made by the Commissioner is that the appointing authority has committed no error in appointing respondent No. 4 and denying appointment to present petitioner on the ground that present petitioner is not the resident of the village in question where appointment is to be made.

Shri Devendra Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on Annexure P-2 (comparative marks obtained by the candidates) submits that the petitioner has obtained more marks than private respondents herein and, therefore, she has a preferential right to be appointed over and above the private respondents herein.

Per Contra, Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State and Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, supported the order (Annexure P-1).

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The denial of appointment to the petitioner is not on merits. The interference was made by the Commissioner on the singular ground that the petitioner does not belong to particular village/ward. The appointment is made for the village Chandanpura whereas as per Annexure P-6, the petitioner is local resident of village Rasodhanadwar, Tahsil Jora. The policy of appointment of Aganwadi Workers dated 10.7.2007 (Annexure P-4) makes it clear that the applicant should be permanent resident of the concerned village/ward. This point was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 421/2007 (Smt. Sadhana vs. State of MP and others). By order dated 11.7.2007 the Division Bench held as under:-

Since inclusion in the voter list was the requirement for appointment as Aaganwadi Worker in policy of the Government of M.P., we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector in setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Aaganwadi Worker.

In a recent judgment reported in 2011 (4) MPLJ 501 (Upma Singh vs. Commissioner, Rewa), the Principal Seat held that condition of local residence with regard to Aaganwadi Worker cannot be said to be violative of equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The same view is taken by the Division Bench in 2012 (1) MPHT 101 (Smt. Basanti Suryawanshi vs. State of MP and others). this Court in its recent judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 1330/2009 (s) (Smt. Kalpana Devi vs. State of MP and others), decided on 19.6.2012, took the same view that as per condition, the Aaganwadi Workers should be the resident of same village/ward. Any other judgment which is not dealing with the scheme of appointment of Aaganwadi Workers is of no assistance to the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner has secured more marks will not give any preferential right to her in the matter of appointment unless she is otherwise eligible.

The Commissioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, has not committed any error of law in setting aside the order of the Collector on the ground that the petitioner herein is not local resident of the particular village. I approve the said order of the Commissioner and consequently dismiss the present petition. No costs.