The central legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of discrimination based on residence in appointments, as mandated by Article 16(2) & 16(3) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Yadav, J. - This Appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against order dated 11.09.2015 passed in Writ petitioin No.12027/2010 and order dated 10.02.2016 passed in Review Petition No.810/2015.

2. In Writ Petition, controversy related to appointment of Anganwadi worker at Anganwadi Centre, Kherua Ki Tapariyan, Gram Panchayat Achatt. The respondent No.6 was at serial No.1 in the select list; however, because of certain objection qua her (respondent No.6) bonafide resident, her candidature was cancelled on 29.09.2007 on the ground that she was not bonafide resident of Gram Panchayat Achatt. Consequently, entire selection process was cancelled; whereagainst the respondent No.6 filed an appeal which was allowed on 04.12.2008 with the direction to the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project to issue appointment order in her favour. This order was, however, set aside by the Commissioner on 02.08.2010, who gave the finding that she was resident of village Tapariyan, Gram Panchayat Kude. Commissioner found:

3. On its challenge in Writ Petition No.12027/2010, the order passed by Commissioner was set-aside. Learned Single Judge held that the respondent No.6 was resident of village Kherua Ki Tapariyan which is part of Gram Panchayat Achatt. Learned Single Judge relied on the certificate issued by Sarpanch and that the husband of respondent No.6 was living in Achatt.

4. These findings are being challenged by the Appellant who was respondent No.6 in Writ Petition.

5. The relevant Clause which lays down the condition of being a bonafide resident is sub-Clause (2) of Clause v-1 of the Policy dated 10.07.2007 which stipulates:

6. Thus, incumbent it is for the candidate to be a resident of Gram Panchayat within which the concerned Anganwadi Centre is located. In the present case the Anganwadi Centre was a Kherua Ki Tapariyan, Gram Panchayat Achatt.

7. The question is whether the respondent No.6 was resident of village Kherua Ki Tapariyan which is located in Gram Panchayat Achatt or of village Tapariyan which is situated in Gram Panchayat Kude. Certain documents are on record which include a birth certificate of respondent No.6's daughter, permanent resident certificate dated 28.06.2003 issued by Naib Tehsildar Maheba, Chhatarpur showing petitioner's husband to be resident of village Tapariyan and not Kherua Ki Tapariyan and the list of the applicants wherein the respondent No.6 who happens to be a resident of village Tapariyan is shown to be located in Gram Panchayat Kude at Serial No.371.

8. Though an attempt is made to establish that the petitioner is resident of village Achatt by referring to Serial 434, however, the candidate at serial No.434 is shown to be a resident of Kherua Ki Tapariyan which is in Gram Panchayat Achatt, where the Anganwadi Centre is situated.

9. These vital facts having been glossed over by learned Single Judge vitiates the findings.

10. As regard to findings that respondent No.6's husband resides in village Panchayat Achatt, it is submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that the certificate issued in his favour was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer which is affirmed in M.P.No.815/2019 decided on 07.01.2020, the copy whereof is brought on record; wherein, learned Single Judge held:

"6. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record available, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner because the Collector in its order has relied upon a certificate issued in favour of the wife of the petitioner in the year 2004 but that certificate has been misread by the Collector because the said certificate was in respect of the Village Tapariya which is available on record. Even otherwise, the order of Collector was in respect of some other issue and that was also set aside by the Commissioner in an appeal preferre