ORDER

1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2.2.2021 passed by the Collector, Bhind, whereby, while partly allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the appointment of the respondent No.5 as Aganwadi Worker/Karyakarta, Aganwadi Kendra Mahadevpura Village Enthaar, District Bhind, the matter has been remitted to the Project Officer for the appointment of the most meritorious candidates from the select list. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 13.8.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent No.5 against the aforesaid order of the Collector has been allowed and the order dated 2.2.2021 has been set aside.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as under:-

3.1 The process for appointment of the Anganwadi Sahaiyka for the Aganwadi Centre in question was initiated vide advertisement dated 21.8.2021. The last date for submission of the application was 5.9.2018. On the basis of the scrutiny of the applications received, the provisional select list was prepared wherein, the petitioner was shown to have obtained 49.30 marks whereas, the respondent No.5 was shown to have obtained 67.30 marks and was placed at Serial No.1. Subsequently, a corrigendum to the select list came to be issued wherein, the petitioner was shown to have obtained 59.03 marks. Since the respondent No.5 was at Srl. No. 1 in the select list, she was appointed vide order dated 14.7.2020. 3.2 The appointment of the respondent No.5 was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the Collector on the ground that the respondent No.5 has been wrongly granted 10 marks for her belonging to the BPL category, as the name of the husband of the respondent No.5 was not reflected in the BPL list and the name of her brother-in-law (Jeth) namely Ganga Singh was reflected in the BPL list. The challenge to the appointment of the respondent No.5 was also made by the petitioner on the ground that she has been wrongly granted 10 marks for being a graduate, as according to the petitioner, the final result of the respondent No.5 declaring her to be graduate was issued on 22.9.2018 i.e. after the cut-off date (last date for submission of application for dated i.e. 5.9.2018).

3.3 The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be partly allowed by the Collector vide order dated 2.2.2021 wherein, the objections to the grant of 10 marks to the respondent No.5 for being a BPL candidate was upheld. The BPL marks granted to the respondent No.5 were deducted and her total marks were ascertained at 57.30 and thereafter the matter was remitted to the Project Officer for issuance of the appointment order for the most meritorious candidate from the select list.

3.4 The aforesaid order dated 2.2.2021 was thereafter challenged by the respondent No.5 in a second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, which came to be allowed vide order dated 13.8.2021 and the appointment of the respondent No.5 has been affirmed. It is these two orders which are under challenge in the instant writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the name of the husband of the respondent No.5 was not mentioned in the BPL list, she was wrongly granted the 10 additional marks which were rightly deducted by the Collector. He further submits that the Commissioner in the second appeal, without adverting to the said aspect had erroneously allowed the second appeal preferred by the respondent No.5. He further submits that once the final result of the respondent No.5 for graduation has been declared on 22.9.2018 i.e. after the cut-off date, she was not entitled for grant of 10 additional marks on the said count and accordingly, he prays for quashment of the orders impugned in the instant writ petiti