IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 4 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 679 of 2012 BETWEEN:-

SMT. DAKHA DHAKAD W/O MAHESH DHAKAD, AGED-24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O DEVKACHH (GRAM PATELPURA) TEH. KAILARAS, DISTT. MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH RAGHUWANSHI- ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF M.P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BAHVAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER, CHAMBAL DIVISION MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. DIST. WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DIST. MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. PROJECT OFFICER ICDS KAILARAS, DIST.

MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. SMT. ARCHANA DHAKAD W/O SHRI SATYENDRA DHAKAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI S.S. KUSHWAH- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND MISS SMRATI SHARMA- ADVOCATE)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke passed the following:

ORDER

1. The present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated 10.1.2012 passed by respondent no.2 in appeal number 35/2011-12 by which the appointment of the petitioner on the post of “Aaganwadi Worker” made by the competent authority on 18.12.2009 has been declared per se illegal and was set aside. The said order dated 10.1.2012 has been passed by the authority on the basis of directions given by this Court in WP No.6067/2011 dated 24.11.2011, wherein respondent no.2/Commissioner was directed to examine whether the BPL certificate filed by the petitioner at the time of her candidature was genuine and also to verify the entry made in Annexure R5/2 of the word “nahi” is added which was not there in the original document, but the aforesaid directions were not complied in its true perspective and exceeding its jurisdiction, the Commissioner had passed the impugned order stating that the BPL card of the petitioner was a forged one and was not available on record and on that basis the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Thus, alleging the whole exercise of the respondent no.2 to be absolutely without jurisdiction and contrary to the directions given by this court, it was prayed that it may be set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to OBC category and is permanent resident of village Devkiachh Gram Patelpura, Tehsil Kailaras, District Morena. Under the policy formulated by the State Government with regard to appointment to the post of Aaganwadi Worker an advertisement was issued by respondent no.4 and applications were invited for the said post at Aaganwadi Center No.222 at village Devkiachh Gram Patelpura Teshil Kailaras, District Morena. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 submitted their applications along with requisite documents. A provisional list was prepared by the Committee and in the said provisional list the Block Level Committee ignored the BPL certificate of the petitioner and wrongly gave only 37 marks and awarded 40 marks to respondent no.5 and as the marks obtained by petitioner were less then respondent no.5, her name was placed at serial no.2 in the said provisional list. Against the aforesaid illegality committed by the Committee in preparation of the provisional list, the petitioner raised an objection that 10 marks towards holding of BPL Card has not been allotted to the petitioner in-spite of the fact that the petitioner had duly enclosed the said certificate along with the form and had mentioned it in column 9 of the form.

3. The District Level Committee had examined the objections of the petitioner and had found that the petitioner has not been awarded 10 marks of the BPL card and, therefore, the objections of the petitioner were accepted and 10 marks were awarded which made the name of the petitioner to appear at serial no.1 in the provisional list as she se