Radha Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(MP) 49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ASHISH SHROTI, J.
Radha Rathore – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 23802 of 2022
Decided on : 09-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Shri K.S. Tomar- learned Government Advocate, Shri Somnath Seth, learned counsel

Headnote:
Civil Services -- appointment on post of Aaganwadi Sahayika -- petitioner not selected as 10 additional marks for being unmarried 30-year-old woman not given to her on ground of her not completing 30 years of age on 1st January -- not justified -- suitability and eligibility of candidate to be seen as on last date for submission of candidature, unless specific date is prescribed for the purpose -- petitioner crossed 30 years on date of submitting application -- entitled for 10 bonus marks as per policy -- impugned order set aside -- respondent authority directed to pass necessary order in favour of petitioner for appointment on aforesaid post within 90 days. (1993) 2 SCC 429 followed. 2016 (4) MPLJ 223 and 2019 (3) MPLJ 51 relied on. [Paras 9, 12, 18 & 19]
flfoy lsok & vk¡xuokM+h lgkf;dk d¢ in fu;qfä & ;kfpuh p;fur ugÈ D;¨afd 30 o"kZ dh vfookfgr efgyk g¨us d¢ fy, 10 vfrfjä vad ,d tuojh d¨ mld¢ 30 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ ugÈ djus d¢ vkèkkj ij ugÈ fn, x, & U;k;¨fpr ugÈ & vH;FkÊ dh mi;qärk rFkk ik=rk vH;fFkZrk çLrqr djus d¢ fnukad d¨ ns[kh tkuk g¨rh gS] tc rd fd bl ç;¨tu d¢ fy, fofufnZ"V fnukad ugÈ fofgr gks & ;kfpuh us vkosnu çLrqr djus d¢ fnukad d¨ 30 o"kZ ikj dj fy, & uhfr d¢ vuqlkj 10 c¨ul vad dh gdnkj & vkf{kIr vkns'k vikLr & çR;FkÊ çkfèkdkjh d¨ 90 fnu d¢ Òhrj iwo¨Zä in ij fu;qfä d¢ fy, ;kfpuh d¢ i{k esa vko';d vkns'k ikfjr djus dk funs'kA ¼1993½ 2 ,llhlh 429 vuqlfjrA 2016 ¼4½ ,eih,yts 223 rFkk 2019 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 51 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 9] 12] 18 ,oa 19½

ORDER :

ASHISH SHROTI, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 12/09/2022 (Annexure-P/1), whereby her appeal challenging the appointment of respondent no.4 on the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika has been dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant her additional marks for her age and to appoint her on the post in question.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that an advertisement was issued on 11/08/2020 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Aaganwadi Karyakarta/Aaganwadi Sahayika/Mini Aaganwadi Sahayika for various Aaganwadi Centres in District-Morena & Sheopur. For purposes of this case, we are concerned with the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika for Ward No.13, Aaganwadi Centre 13/2, Housing Colony, Bhind.

3. The petitioner, respondent no.4 as also others applied for the aforesaid post. After scrutiny of applications, the provisional select list was published on 30/09/2020 (Annexure-P/5), whereby the following position emerged:

Name of Candidate	Marks Allotted
Bhavana Shukla	77
Manoj (respondent no.4)	69
Sadhana	68
Seetu	67
Juli	64
Radha Rathore (petitioner)	63

4. It is thus, seen that one Bhavna Shukla was placed at serial no.1 while the petitioner was placed at serial no.6 in the provisional select list. Being aggrieved by her non-selection, the petitioner submitted objection to the selection of Smt. Bhawana Shukla stating that she is not the resident of Ward No.13 and is, therefore, not eligible for appointment on the post. The petitioner also claimed 10 marks towards her being unmarried lady of more than 30 years of age. The objection was considered by the District Level Grievance Redressal Committee. Her objection with regard to eligibility of Smt. Bhavna Shukla was accepted and she was disqualified for appointment. However, the petitioner was denied 10 marks towards her being unmarried lady of more than 30 years of age, on the ground that as on 01/01/2020 she had not completed 30 years of age. Accordingly, final select list was published on 19/01/2022 (Annexure-P/7) and the respondent no.4, being at serial no.1 of merit list, was appointed as Aaganwadi Sahayika on 01/02/2022 (Annexure- P/8).

5. Being aggrieved by the appointment of respondent no.4, the petitioner filed an appeal before Collector, Bhind. She again claimed 10 marks towards her being unmarried lady of more than 30 years of age and also raised objection to the eligibility of respondent no.4 on the ground that she is not the resident of Ward No.13. Both her grounds were repelled by the Collector. Based upon the BPL card, it was held that respondent no.4 is the resident of the same ward. Regarding 10 marks, the Collector held that the requisite age criteria is required to be satisfied as on 01/01/2020 and on this date the petitioner had not completed 30 years of age and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to additional 10 marks. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Challenging this order, the present petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the date of 01/01/2020 is fixed only for purposes of determining the minimum and maximum age of the candidate. However, the said date is not prescribed for allocation of 10 bonus marks for being unmarried lady of 30 years of age. He, thus, submitted that respondents erred in denying the benefit of 10 bonus marks to the petitioner. He submitted that if 10 marks are allocated to the petitioner, she would secure 73 marks and would march over all the other candidates and would secure first position in the merit list and would be entitled for appointment. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Renu Vishwakarma Vs. Tulsi Vishwakarma & others reported in 2019(3) M.P.L.J. 51 and judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Renu Devi Vs. Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena & others reported in 2016(4) M.P.L.J. 223.

7. On the other hand, learned Government