1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of Smt. Sapna Saxena appointed as Aanganwadi Worker, Village Karvas, Tahsil Gohad, District Bhind upon selection, challenging the order passed by the Collector dated 12.5.2016 (Annexure P-1) allowing application dated 15.10.2015 (Annexure P-8) filed by the respondent No.4, Ms.Sunita Upadhyay to be arrayed as party under Order I rule 10 CPC in an appeal filed by the respondent No.5, Mata Prasad on 20.7.2012 questioning her appointment order dated 12.6.2012 (Annexure P-2).

2. Facts necessary and relevant for disposal of this writ petition are to the effect that the State Government has framed a policy for the purpose of selection and appointment of Aanganwadi Worker/Assistant. The amended policy dated 10.7.2007 (Annexure R/4-1) is on record which inter alia provides for an appeal under clause C-6 and the same reads as under:

^^l&6%&vihy

vk¡xuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dh fu;qfDr@lsok ls i`Fkd~ djus ds fdlh Hkh izdj.k esa fookn gksus dh fLFkfr esa vkosfndk }kjk vafre lwph izdk'ku ds fnukad ls 10 fnol ds Hkhrj dyDVj ds le{k vihy dh tk ldsxhA dyDVj }kjk 15 fnol ds Hkhrj vihy dk fujkdj.k fd;k tk,xkA lacaf/kr i{k }kjk ;fn pkgsa rks f}rh; vihy izFke vihy fujkdj.k ls 10 fnol ds Hkhrj laHkkxh; vk;qDr ds le{k dj ldsaxs ,oa laHkkxh; vk;qDr }kjk vihy dk fujkdj.k vf/kdre 15 fnol esa fd;k tk ldsxkA**

3. The controversy involved in this writ petition relates to (i) maintainability of appeal at the instance of respondent No.5, Mata Prasad; (ii) allow ability of the application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC filed by the respondent No.4 and (iii) pregnability of the impugned order dated 12.5.2016 (Annexure P-1).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a careful reading of the appeal provision unambiguously suggests that only applicants in the matter of appointment or termination of Aanganwadi Worker/Assistant can file appeal within 10 days from the date of publication of the final select list before the Collector and the said authority is obliged to decide the appeal within 15 days' therefrom. As such, none other than the applicant in the process of selection for appointment can file the appeal. The respondent No.5, Mata Prasad is admittedly not one of the applicants in the selection process, therefore, the appeal filed by him on 20.7.2012 was not maintainable. Respondent No.4 though one of the applicants for appointment as Aanganwadi Worker has not chosen to file the appeal within the stipulated period of ten days instead filed an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC as late as on 15.10.2015 in the appeal filed by the respondent No.5. Under the circumstances, such an application could not have been entertained by the Collector at such a belated stage; more so, when hearing of the appeal on admission itself was deferred since 5.10.2012 till passing of the impugned order for no justifiable reason. Hence, the application filed on 15.10.2015 was wrongly entertained and by a cryptic impugned order, the same has been allowed without assigning any reason or justification by the appellate authority. As such, impleadment of respondent No.4 in the appellate proceedings was wholly contrary to the provision contained under clause C-6 of the policy.

5. The Collector being the appellate authority was obliged to consider the application so filed with care and caution and in accordance with law. Once the appeal itself was not maintainable filed at the instance of the respondents No.5 and 3 there being no plausible explanation offered by the respondent No.4 for having not filled the appeal within the specified period as provided for in the policy, in all fairness, the Collector ought not to have allowed the application for impleadment during pendency of the appeal for about three years. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed in a hot haste and slip shod manner only to avoid dismissal of the appeal as the same is not