ORDER

Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 11.3.2024 passed by learned Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in Appeal No.134/Appeal/2023-24 (Smt.Pragati Ahirwar versus Smt.Nainsee Verma & Others) whereby the learned Commissioner has set aside the order of the Additional Collector on the basis of the Samagra I.D & the B.P.L Card and has held the appellant Smt.Pragati Ahirwar to be the resident of Ward No.7 of Harijan Basti. Vide Annexure P/1 dated 15.3.2021, the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project (Rural), Tikamgarh had issued an advertisement for appointment of the Aganwadi Karyakarta for different places, which included the Nagar Panchayat Badagaon, Dhasan Ward No.7. Both the petitioner and the private respondent were candidates of the said selection.

It is not in dispute that the private respondent had secured more marks then the petitioner. However, the petitioner had raised an objection with regard to the place of residence of the private respondent and in support, had filed copy of the voter information enclosed alongwith this writ petition as Annexure P/15 in which name of the private respondent Smt.Pragati Ahirwar is mentioned at Serial No.61 with Election I.D. Card No.IHP2208700. This voter list is for Ward No.8 of Badgaon Dhasan Lukharyavkhera and not for Ward No.7. There is clear stipulation in the advertisement itself that a candidate should be a local resident. In the Circular issued in this regard, there is stipulation in the Office of Memorandum No.F-3-2/06/50-2 dated 10.7.2007 that the name of such person should be in the voter list or the upto date B.P.L.List itself. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate for the State assisted by Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the Caveator submits that requirement of the name available in the voter List/B.P.L List being fulfilled as noted by learned Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar inasmuch as the name of the private respondent is mentioned in the B.P.L.List for Ward No.7, and, therefore, the order passed by learned Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar cannot be faulted with.

The Circular No.Mahila Bal Vikas ICDS/09/6555 dated 31.7.2009 alongwith which Annxure-3 is attached provides that the candidate should be a local resident of the Ward or Village where Aganwadi Centre is to be opened. If the name is not mentioned in the voter list of the said Ward or Village then a Certificate can be obtained from the Sub Divisional Officer or the Tahsildar about the local residence. The subsequent circular of the State Government clarified the position that only those candidates will be entitled to be considered as local residents, whose names are mentioned in the voter list or who have produced a Certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer or the Tasildar showing them to be local residents of that particular Ward.

In the present case, since the voter list enclosed alongwith Annexure P/15 showing the name of the private respondent as voter of Ward No.8 is not disputed then it is evident that the private respondent was not a local resident of Ward No.7. for which vacancy was advertised and, therefore, learned Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar was clearly in error in allowing the appeal filed by Smt.Pragati Ahirwar. At this stage, on perusal of record, it reveals that a Certificate given by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Parishad Dhasan, District Tikamgarh is available showing that Smt.Pragati Ahirwar W/o Shri Kishori Ahirwar is resident of Ward No.8. and her Rashan Card is of the earlier address of her father-in- law, which was issued for Ward No.7. On verification of the online voter list from the year 2018 to 2021, Smt.Pragati Ahirwar was found to be included in the voter list of Ward No.8 and she was found to be residing in Ward No.8. In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that learned Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar was clearly in error in allowing the appeal filed by Smt.Pragati Ahirwar. The impugned order cannot be sustained