Smt. Vandana vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.07.2013 by which the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division has set aside the order passed by the Collector, Balaghat in Appeal Case No. 67/B-121/09-10 dated 16.6.2010 issued in favour of the petitioner regarding her appointment as Anganwaadi Worker in Lalbarra Project, District Balaghat.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration Annexure P-2 which is a list of the year 2008-09 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lalbarra, indicating the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 178 of the BPL list. It is submitted that as the petitioner possessed a BPL certificate, she was entitled to be given 10 marks and consequently appointment as Anganwaadi Worker as was been held and ordered by the Collector. It is submitted that the Additional Commissioner, without considering the aforesaid documents on record, has allowed the appeal which deserves to be set aside.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the Additional Commissioner, in para-7 of the impugned order, has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner''s name appears in the list of BPL candidates. The Additional Commissioner has thereafter, on the basis of the record, recorded a finding to the effect that subsequently the BPL certificate issued to the petitioner''s husband was cancelled by order dated 27.11.2010 and, therefore, the petitioner does not belong to the BPL category.

Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Appellate Authority, on the basis of the documents available on record, is perverse or otherwise. There is nothing on record to indicate that the BPL certificate has been restored.

In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order.

It is next contended that the respondent no.5 is infact incompetent to be appointed on the post of Anganwaadi Worker.

The question of considering the eligibility or otherwise of respondent no.5 in the present proceedings does not arise as the appellate authority and the Collector have both remitted the matter back to the concerned appointing authority for again drawing up the merit list by taking all documents on record into consideration and thereafter appointing the most meritorious candidate.

In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioner in respect of respondent No. 5 also need not be considered at this stage as the matter has been sent back to the appellate authority for reassessment of the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.