The court upheld the necessity of providing adequate residency proof for employment eligibility, emphasizing that substantive justice must inform procedural requirements.

Order On Board

02-07-2025

1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set- aside the order dated 19.02.2018 (Anrexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, whereby the appointment order of the petitioner dated 22.09.2011 has been set-aside. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work in the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta for the Village Marangi.

10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.

2) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and other eligible candidates submitted application forms for the post of Anganwadi Worker, Centre–Marangi, Tehsil–Bagicha, District–Jashpur in the year 2010. Petitioner was selected and an order of appointment was issued in her favor on 22.09.2011. Respondent No. 5 challenged the appointment of the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector, Jashpur which was allowed vide order dated 26.02.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Division–Ambikapur which was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2018. Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 19.02.2018.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector, Jashpur as well as Divisional Commissioner, Division–Ambikapur have recorded a categorical finding to the effect that the petitioner was not a resident of Village Marangi and she could not produce documents to establish this fact according to the policy dated 02.04.2008. He further submits that initially, the petitioner was a resident of Village Khadakona and after her marriage to a resident of Village Marangi, she shifted there. He contends that the name of the petitioner was present in the voter list of the year 2010 wherein her name appears at S. No. 98. He further contends that relevant documents were filed along with the application form by the petitioner but those were not considered and the findings recorded by the Collector, Jashpur as well as Divisional Commissioner, Division–Ambikapur are contrary to the record. He argues that undisputedly, the petitioner was a voter of Village Marangi, therefore, the authorities ought to have treated her as a resident of Village Marangi. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Charles K. Skaria & Ors. Versus Dr.C. Mathew & Ors, [1. AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1230]

4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that according to Clause 1.5 of the policy dated 02.04.2008, the candidate must be a resident of the village where Anganwadi Center is proposed; the candidate should file either a copy of the Voter List of that village or a domicile certificate jointly issued by Sarpanch and Secretary of that Gram Panchayat. He further submits that the petitioner failed to submit these documents and only submitted the domicile certificate of Village Khadakona. He contends that the petitioner also failed to submit the Voter List along with the application form, therefore, the Collector, Jashpur and Divisional Commissioner, Division–Ambikapur rightly held that the petitioner was not eligible according to Clause 1.5 of the policy.

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Charles K. Skaria (supra) held that if proof of a document like diploma etc. has been placed before the authority co