ORDER

Pleadings are complete. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is finally heard.

2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Additional Collector, has been rejected.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6, all have submitted their applications in pursuance to the advertisement issued for appointment of Aanganwadi Sahayika of Gram Panchayat Khejramaphi, Tehsil Jaisinagar, District Sagar. Along with these persons, other candidates have also applied and total 14 applications were received. Thereafter, appointment was made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 26.07.2022. The petitioner joined the services in pursuance to her appointment order on the same day i.e. 26.07.2022. However, the appointment of the petitioner has been assailed by respondent No.5 before the Additional Collector Sagar, who in turn, vide order dated 04.11.2022 not only rejected the appeal, but accepted the counter claim of respondent No.6 cancelling the order of appointment made in favour of the petitioner on 26.07.2022. The Additional Collector has further directed that respondent No.6 be granted 60 marks in the final merit list dated 21.04.2022 on the basis grading 'A' already given to her. Resultantly, respondent No.6 came at Sr. No.1 and as such, became entitled to be appointed on the post of Aanganwadi Sahayika at Gram Panchayat Khejramaphi because she was older in age.

4. Thereafter, the said order of Additional Collector was further assailed in second appeal before the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, but that was dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2023. Hence, this petition challenging the order of Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar as well as the Additional Collector.

5. Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has founded his claim mainly on the ground that the appeal decided by the Additional Collector is without jurisdiction. He submits that as per the policy of Aanganwadi Worker, if any appeal is preferred challenging the appointment of Aanganwadi Worker/Sahayika, the same shall lie before the Collector and it shall be decided by the Collector only. He further submits that the Additional Collector has no authority to decide the appeal and, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector is without jurisdiction. He has also assailed the order on the ground that as per the chart prepared by the Selection Committee comparing the merit of the candidates, the petitioner has been shown at Sr.

No.2 giving grading 'A' and as such, secured 80 marks whereas according to him, respondent No.6 placed at Sr. No.1 and she was awarded grading on the basis of marks secured by her and as such, in view of the circular dated 27.11.2020 (Annexure-P/9), the marks of respondent No.6 were calculated as 45.33 whereas the petitioner's marks as per the said list, shown as 80 marks. Shri Dixit submits that there were other candidates secured same marks and with a comparative assessment since the petitioner was meritorious, therefore, appointed on the post of Aanganwadi Sahayika and her appointment was rightly made by the respondents. Although, he submits that the Additional Collector misinterpreted the said circular dated 27.11.2020 and wrongly observed that respondent No.6 is meritorious and as such, appointment on the post of Aanganwadi Sahayika has to be made in favour of the petitioner and according to Shri Dixit said finding is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the circular dated 27.11.2020. In support of his submission, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in [2013(3) M.P.L.J. 386] parties being K.K. Gupta vs. State of M.P. an