Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 38643
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN, J
Smt. Prabhawati Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 9689/2012
,Advocate General
The court ruled that possession of qualifications must precede proof submission, emphasizing that procedural errors should not negate meritorious claims.
Headnote:(A) Education Regulations - Eligibility Criteria for Appointment - The petition challenges the order confirming the appointment of a candidate for Mini Anganwadi Workers, alleging manipulation of application documents. The petitioner was initially disqualified due to the submission of her husband's marksheet instead of her own. The Collector reinstated the petitioner, citing her qualification, but the Additional Commissioner reversed this decision due to lack of documentation in the application. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Evidence and Proof of Qualifications - The court emphasized that the actual possession of qualifications must precede the submission of proof. The petitioner claimed manipulation of her application, asserting that her marksheet was replaced. The court found merit in this claim, highlighting that the essential qualification was obtained prior to the application submission date. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner and another candidate contested for the Mini Anganwadi Workers position. The petitioner was disqualified for allegedly failing to submit her Class 8th marksheet, which she claimed was manipulated. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner had indeed qualified Class 8th and directed the verification of her marksheet for appointment. (Paras 12-14)
Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the appointment process and the evidentiary requirements for qualification. (Paras 8-9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that possessing the qualification is paramount, and procedural errors in document submission should not invalidate a meritorious claim. (Paras 10-11)
Result: The petition is allowed, and the order of the Additional Commissioner is set aside.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annex.P/1 dated 06/06/2012, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No.9 has been allowed and the order of Collector vide Annex.P/11 dated 27/02/2012 has been set aside and the appointment of the respondent No.9 vide order
Annex.P/10 has been confirmed by the Additional Commissioner.
2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of present petition are that the petitioner as well as two other candidates namely Asha Tripathi and Reeta Tripathi (respondent No.9) were contenders for appointment on the post of Mini Anganwadi Workers. The other contender namely Asha Tripathi stood at serial number No.1 in the merit but she was later declared disqualified as she was found to be resident of some other village. Thus, the real contest remained between the petitioner and respondent No.9. The respondent No.9 was appointed by overlooking the marksheet of the petitioner of Class 8th on the ground that the petitioner has not qualified Class 8th examination because along with her application form, the marksheet of her husband namely Subhash Chandra was annexed with the application form which could not be accepted and therefore, the petitioner was held having not qualified Class 8th examination and therefore, she was WP-9689-2012 pushed down in the merit below respondent No.9.
3. The petitioner filed appeal before the Collector along with appointment of respondent No.9 and the appeal was allowed by the Collector vide Annex.P/11 and the Collector noted that the petitioner has already qualified Class 8th examination in the year 1996-97 and therefore, the said certificate ought to have been given effect to by the appointing authority and for this reason, held the petitioner to be more meritorious and directed appointment of the petitioner.
4. Against the said order Annex.P/11, the respondent No.9 filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner which has been allowed by order Annex.P/1 dated 06/06/2012 holding that the marksheet of the petitioner of Class 8th was not available in the record along with her application form, therefore, the said marksheet available with the application form being of her husband Subhash Chandra and not of the petitioner herself, on this ground, the appeal of respondent No.9 was allowed and the order of Collector was set aside.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was some manipulation with her application form and in place of marksheet of the No.9 is a LIC agent and the husband of petitioner had given a copy of his marksheet to the husband of respondent No.9 at some time in the past and this was misused by respondent No.9.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State by placing reliance on application form of the petitioner as Annex.R/1 to reply of the State submits that along with the application form the marksheet which was annexed was marksheet of husband Subhash Chandra and not of the petitioner herself. On similar lines, the respondent No.9 has also filed a reply and the copy of entire application form of the petitioner obtained by the respondent No.9 under RTI Act has been annexed with the reply of respondent No.9 to submit that the petitioner never relied on her own marksheet to seek appointment.
7. Upon hearing the counsel for rival parties and on consideration of documents placed on record it is seen that the petitioner has qualified Class 8th examination in the year 1996-97 and the said marksheet declaring the petitioner as passed in the said class is placed on record as Annex.P/4. The same marksheet was available before the Collector also and the Collector while passing the order Annex.P/11 has given effect to the said marksheet.
8. The counsel for the State has argued that the document which was not supplied along with the application form could not be looked into by the authorities because any documents supplied after close of submission of application form cannot be given effect to and therefore, the order of Additional Commi
