Smt. Vimal Prabha Jain vs State of MP and Another

Rajendra Menon, Judge

Challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Chhatarpur dated 19.6.2012 - Annexure P/4 and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that no interference into an order of remand made by the Additional Collector is called for, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Matter pertains to appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta to Anganwadi Center Maddevra No. 4 Ekikrit Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Bakswaha, District Chhatarpur. 19 applications were received in pursuance to an advertisement issued and on the basis of merit petitioner was appointed.

Respondent No. 5 Smt. Archana Jain challenged the appointment of the petitioner. The Additional Collector called for the records and on scrutiny of the same found that petitioner has been granted 10 additional marks for being a person living below the poverty line, but on examination of the records produced before him, the Collector found that the petitioner has been granted 10 additional marks on the ground that her name is included in a list of persons headed by the family member Shri Arun Kumar Jain. Shri Arun Kumar Jain happens to be brother-in-law of the petitioner and 10 marks was granted to the petitioner being a member of the family of Shri Arun Kumar Jain. However, on scrutiny of the records, which included the original application filed by Shri Arun Kumar Jain for grant of BPL Card, and the list of family members, it was found that neither the petitioner''s name nor name of her husband was included and, therefore, the Additional Collector recorded a finding that 10 marks have been incorrectly granted to the petitioner and remanded the matter back to the competent authority for reconsideration, after examining all the documents and take a decision afresh in accordance with law.

Against this remand order petitioner preferred an appeal and the Additional Commissioner holding that it is only an order of remand and as the matter is pending before the competent authority where the petitioner can raise her objections and further finding the second appeal to be premature, has refused to interfere into the matter.

Even though Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, tried to emphasize that based on the material available on record, the Additional Commissioner should have decided the matter on merits, I am of the considered view that there are serious dispute with regard to entitlement of the petitioner to claim bonus marks. For being a person living below poverty line conflicting documents are available on record relating to the petitioner, which warrants inquiry and, therefore, if the matter is remanded to conduct such an inquiry, I am of the considered view that the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner have not committed any error which warrants interference in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The grounds raised in this writ petition are factual assertions with regard to petitioner being a person living below poverty line and based on the documents produced by her, petitioner wants this Court to record a finding that she is a person living below the poverty line and, therefore, her appointment was correct. This exercise can be more appropriately and properly dealt with by the competent authority where all the parties can be heard, the documents examined and a decision taken. In view of the same, I see no reason to interfere when the matter is already pending before the competent authority.

Petitioner may approach before the competent authority, produce all the documents to support her claim and it would be for the competent authority to take a decision based on the documents.

Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, this petition stands dismissed. Certified copy as per rules.