IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL th ON THE 25 OF JANUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 4970 of 2014 BETWEEN:-

SMT. TULSA BAI GOND W/O SHRI RAMNARAYAN GOND, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, VILLAGE CHOUPRA, TEHSIL AND DISTT. PANNA, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI BRIJESH CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMEENT DEPTT.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER SAGAR COMMISSIONER SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. COLLECTOR PANNA COLLECTOR PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER WOMAN AND CHILD DEBELOPMENT WOMAN AND CHILD DEBELOPMENT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SMT. ANITA GOND W/O BAHADUR GOND VILLAGE GHOUPRA TEHSIL AND DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE)

(BY SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following Order dictated in the open Court:

This petition is filed being aggrieved of selection of respondent No.6 on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta and the appeal which was filed before respondent No.2 Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar as was registered as Appeal No.269/A-89/2009-10 on 30.11.2013 rejected the petitioner's appeal, hence this writ petition.

2. On 21.04.2022, this Court had allowed the writ petition but the respondent No.6 herein had approached the Division Bench of this Court by filing W.A. No.533/2022 taking a ground that she was not given an opportunity of hearing and, therefore, Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to remand the matter to the Single Bench. Hence this matter is taken up today.

3. Issue involved herein is that whether the respondent No.6 whose husband was admittedly a Panch at the time of her making an application for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakarta at Anganwadi Kendra, Chopra, Gram Panchayat Sakariya, District Panna was whether eligible for such appointment in terms of the stipulations contained in Office Memorandum No./F3-2/06/50-2 dated 27.05.2006 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh Women and Child Development Department, Mantralay.

4. Petitioner's contention is that as per the requirements of eligibility for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakarta contained in the said Office Memorandum, Clause v-1(4) provides that "p;fur dh tku s okyh vkxa uckMh dk;ZdrkZ dh p;u izfdz;k ds izR;{k ;k vizR;{k laca/k j[kus okys ljdkjh vFkok ipa k;rh jkt laLFkkvks@uxjh; fudk;ks ds fuokZfpr vFkok euksuhr lnL; vFkok mld s lx s lca /a kh ugh a gkus k Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH pkfg;sA lxs laca/kh ls vfHkizk; gS fd 'kkldh; vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh d s firk&ekrk] HkkbZ&cgu]

ifr&iRuh] iq=&iq=h] llqj&lkl] lkyk ¼cznj bu yk¡½] nkekn ¼lu bu yk¡½] iq= o/kqA"

5. Thus, it is submitted that since husband of the respondent No.6 was an elected Panch of the same Gram Panchayat, therefore, she was not eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Karyakarta.

6. Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.6, in his turn, places reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Draupathi Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2013(2) MPLJ 407 7. Reading from paragraph 12, it is submitted that Division Bench of this High Court has laid down a ratio which is having two folds bearing namely, to be disqualify a person, should be within the prohibited degrees as mentioned in the relevant clause extracted above.

In that case the candidate Draupati Tiwari's borther in law i.e. brother of the husband (Devar) was a Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary and, therefore, she having not fallen in the prohibited degree was held to be eligible.

8. It is further submitted by Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.6, that Division Bench of the High Court has held that since Panchayat Karmi has no role in the selection of an Anganwadi Karyakart