Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.K. Seth and Vijay Kumar Shukla, JJ.
Renu Vishwakarma v. Tulsi Vishwakarma & others
Writ Appeal No. 1158 of 2018 (Jabalpur); Decided on 8.4.2019.
The sole issue that has cropped up for consideration, as to whether the subsequent cancellation of BPL certificate of the present appellant after filing of her application for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Sahayika, would be relevant for consideration of her case in the selection. Undisputedly, on the date of filing of the application form the appellant was in possession of a valid BPL certificate and, therefore, she was awarded 10 extra marks towards BPL category by the selection committee.
Held: Thus analysed, we do not concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the subsequent cancellation of the BPL certificate would dis-entitle the appellant from enuring the benefit of 10 marks meant for BPL category, especially when the said order has already been set aside.
Ex-consequenti, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench is set aside.
(2) Appointment -- candidate must possess requisite qualification on the last date fixed for submitting application forms. (1993)2 SCC 429 and (2013)11 SCC 58 followed. [Para 15
¼1½ fu;qfDr && fu;qfDr ds fy, vkosnu izLrqr djus ds fnukad dks vkosfndk ds ikl fof/kekU; ^xjhch js[kk ls uhps dk izek.ki= && iwoksZDr izek.k i= ds i'pkr~orhZ jn~~ndj.k ls og mlds }kjk iwoksZDr fnukad dks izek.k i= ls fy, x, Qk;ns ls oafpr ugha gksxhA
fopkj djus ds fy, tks ,dek= fook|d mRiUu gqvk gS og bl ckjs esa gS fd D;k vk¡xuckM+h lgkf;dk ds in ij fu;qfDr ds fy, orZeku vihykFkhZ }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus ds i'pkr~ mlds ^xjhch js[kk ls uhps ds izek.k i= dk i'pkr~orhZ jn~ndj.k p;u esa mlds ekeys ij fopkj djus ds fy, lqlaxr gksxkA vfookfnr :i ls] vkosnui= izLrqr djus ds fnukad dks vihykFkhZ ds ikl fofèkekU; xjhch js[kk ds uhps dk izek.ki= Fkk blfy, mls p;u lfefr }kjk xjhch js[kk ls uhps ds laoxZ esa 10 vfrfjDr vad iznku fd, x,A
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % blh izdkj fo'ys"k.k djus ij] ge fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh'k }kjk viuk, x, bl n`f"Vdks.k ls] fd xjhch js[kk ls uhps ds izek.k i= ds i'pkr~orhZ jn~ndj.k ls vihykFkhZ xjhch js[kk ls uhps ds laoxZ ds fy, vk'kf;r 10 vad dk Qk;nk ysus ls oafpr gksxh] lger ugha gS] fo'ks"k :i ls rc tcfd mDr vkns'k igys gh vikLr fd;k tk pqdk gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i] fjV vihy eatwj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku ,dy U;k;ihB }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k vkf{kIr vkns'k vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA ¼1993½2 ,l lh lh 429 rFkk ¼2013½11 ,l lh lh 58 vuqlfjrA
¼2½ fu;qfDr && vkosnu izi= izLrqr djus ds fy, fu;r vafre fnukad dks vH;FkhZ ds ikl visf{kr vgZrk gksuk vko';d gSA ¼1993½2 ,l lh lh 429 rFkk ¼2013½11 ,l lh lh 58 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15
Shukla, J. -- 1. The present intra-Court appeal is filed under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyamn, 2005 challenging the order dated 9.8.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 Tulsi Vishawakarma [hereinafter referred to as ‘the writ petitioner’] has been allowed.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details : The relevant facts lie in a narrow compass. An advertisement was issued on 31.3.2016 by the Collector (Women and Child Development), District Singrauli inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta/Anganwadi Sahayika. The controversy in the present case pertains to appointment of Anganwadi Sahayika in the Anganwadi Centre, Kasada, Gram Panchayat Naikahwa, District Singrauli. Pursuant to the advertisement the writ petitioner as well as Renu Vishwakarma, the appellant herein, along with other applied for the said post. On the basis of the applications received a tentative select list was prepared. The appellant was placed at Sr. No.1 having obtained 66.10 marks whereas the name of the writ petitioner featured at Sr. No.2 having scored 57.20 marks, as evident from Annexure-P/2.
3. As per Anganwadi Scheme objections were invited against the said tentative select list. Objection of the writ petitioner was that the appellant is not entitled for 10 marks towards BPL card as per Anganwadi Scheme and thus her marks were reduced from 66.10 to 56.10. In the final select list the writ petitioner was placed at Sr.No.1 and appointment order was issued in her favour on 12.8.2016.
4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of appointment the appellant filed an appeal before the Collector, Singrauli on the ground that on the dates of submission of the application and last date of submission of application forms the appellant was having all eligible qualifications including BPL certificate etc. and, therefore, she was rightly given 10 marks for BPL category. The Collector by order dated 9.1.2017 allowed the appeal filed by the present appellant and held that on the date of submission of the application, the appellant was within the BPL category and, therefore, if the BPL certificate was subsequently cancelled, the same would not affect the selection already made. As on the last date of submission of the application forms, the appellant was having all requisite qualifications qua BPL certificate.
5. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector, Singrauli the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa which was dismissed on 19.1.2017. The writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Collector, Singrauli dated 9.1.2017 as well as the order dated 19.1.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa. The writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge which is subject-matter of challenge in the instant appeal.
6. The following dates are not disputed by the parties. The date of advertisement was 31.3.2016 and the date for submission of the applications commenced from 4.4.2016 to 21.4.2016. Thus, the last date for submission of the application forms was 21.4.2016. It is pertinent to mention here that the writ petitioner filed incomplete copy of the advertisement on record. None of the parties have filed the Scheme of appointment of Anganwadi Sahayika on record.
7. At the time of admission of the appeal on 5.9.2018 counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chitrangi, District Singrauli by order dated 10.8.2018 has set aside the order of cancellation of BPL certificate issued in favour of the writ petitioner and, therefore, the status of the present appellant in BPL category stands restored. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner prayed for time to find out as to whether the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chitrangi in respect of the BPL category of the appellant, has been challenged in further appeal or not. On 24
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
