Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2959/2014 of SMT. GULAB KALI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWALON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2959 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
SMT. GULAB KALI W/O SHRI DEVENDRA CHATURVEDI,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WOKING ASAANGANWADI OWRKER VILL. DIHULI NO.2 JANPADPANCHAYAT SIHAWAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI TANESH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARYWOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYAPRADESH)WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.ADDL. COMMISSIONER REWA DIVISION REWADIVISION, REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)DIVISION, REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SIDHISIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.PROJECT OFFICER WOMEN & CHILDDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SIHAWALSIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SIHAWALSIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER WOMEN &CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIDHI SIDHI(MADHYA PRADESH)CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIDHI SIDHI(MADHYA PRADESH)
6.SMT. VANDANA W/O SHRI RISHIRAJ DWIVEDIR/O VILLAGE DIHULI NO.2, JANPAD PANCHAYATSIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)R/O VILLAGE DIHULI NO.2, JANPAD PANCHAYATSIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7.SMT. GUDIYA DEVI W/O SHRI DINESH PRASADTIWARI R/O VILLAGE DIHULI NO.2, JANPADPANCHAYAT SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYAPRADESH)TIWARI R/O VILLAGE DIHULI NO.2, JANPADPANCHAYAT SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS No. 1 TO 5 BY SHRI ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI - PANELLAWYER )(RESPONDENTS No. 6 & 7 BY SHRI SATYA PRAKASH MISHRA -ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 2963 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
SMT. GULAB KALI W/O SHRI DEVENDRA CHATURVEDI,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKING ASAANGANWADI WORKER VILL. DIHULI NO.2 JANPADPANCHAYAT SIHAWAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI TANESH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARYWOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYAPRADESH)WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.ADDL. COMMISSIONER REWA (MADHYAPRADESH)PRADESH)
3.COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (MADHYAPRADESH)PRADESH)
4.PROJECT OFFICER WOMEN AND CHILDDEVELOPMENT DEPTT. SIHAWAL (MADHYAPRADESH)DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. SIHAWAL (MADHYAPRADESH)
5.DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER WOMEN ANDCHILD DEVELOPEMENT OFFICER SIDHI(MADHYA PRADESH)CHILD DEVELOPEMENT OFFICER SIDHI(MADHYA PRADESH)
6.SMT. GUDIYA DEVI W/O SHRI DINESH PRASADTIWARI VILL. DIHULI NO.2 JANPAD PANCHAUYATSIHAWAL (MADHYA PRADESH)TIWARI VILL. DIHULI NO.2 JANPAD PANCHAUYATSIHAWAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7.SMT. VANDANA W/O SHRI RISHIRAJ DWIVEDIVILL. DIHULI NO.2 JANPAD PANCHAYATSIHAWAL (MADHYA PRADESH)VILL. DIHULI NO.2 JANPAD PANCHAYATSIHAWAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
8.SMT. KALPANA VISHVAKARMA W/O SHRIRAJESH VISHWAKARMA VILL. DIHULI NO.2RAJESH VISHWAKARMA VILL. DIHULI NO.2
JANPAD PANCHAYAT SIHAWAL (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS No. 1 TO 5 BY SHRI ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI - PANELLAWYER )(RESPONDENTS No. 6 TO 8 BY SHRI SATYA PRAKASH MISHRA -ADVOCATE)
These petitions coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 03.02.2014 passed by learnedAdditional Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa, so also order dated26.06.2012 passed by the learned Collector, Sidhi, District Sidhi, wherebypetitioner's claim for appointment as Anganwari Karyakarta has been rejectedon the ground that petitioner was not falling within the BPL Category as per thefact finding report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, enclosed alongwith the returnfiled by the State Government vide I.A. No. 5532 of 2017 as Annexure R-1dated 25.03.2017 in which it is clearly mentioned that the father-in-law andmother-in-law of the petitioner Smt. Gulab Kali were having 12.860 and 0.350Hect. of land and therefore, they were not entitled to be recorded as a personunder the BPL Category and thus the petitioner was not entitled to be appointedunder the BPL Category.
At this Shri Tanesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner,referring to the order of the Collector Sidhi dated 26.06.2012 points out thatCollector Sidhi on the basis of the discussion made therein found that petitioneris entitled to 49 marks with the following breakup, namely - 39 marks onaccount of marks obtained i.e. 68% in Class - XII[th], 10 marks for highereducation totaling 49 marks, whereas private respondent was given only 47
marks including BPL Marks, therefore, petitioner being more meritorious,keeping aside her BPL Card, she should have been given appointment.
Shri Mishra opposes the prayer and submits that petitioner did notproduce any documentary evidence to show that she possess higher educationi.e. Graduation or Post-graduation degree.
This fact could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner and has been discussed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa.
Taking these facts into consideration that there is no documentaryevidence to the effect that petitioner possess higher degree, her total markscomes out to 39 which is lower than the marks secured by the privaterespondent, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to continue as AnganwariKaryakarta on the strength of interim protection granted by a Co-ordinate Benchof this Court.
Accordingly, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by theCollector and the Addl. Commissioner respectively. Petition fails and isdismissed. Interim order stands vacated.
AR
(VIVEK AGARWAL)JUDGE