IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 9759 of 2021 SMT. USHA JATAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sohit Mishra- GA for the respondents/State.

Shri Vinod Kumar Dhakad- Advocate for respondent no. 5.

ORDER Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated

22/4/2021(Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, whereby, the appeal filed by respondent no.5 has been allowed and order passed by Additional Collector, Shivpuri has been set aside. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of appointment of respondent no.5 on the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta.

2. Facts necessary for decision of this case are that an advertisement was issued on 16/3/2011 (Annexure P/3) inviting applications for appointment on the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta for various Aanganwadi centres. For the purposes of this case, the advertisement in relation to Aanganwadi Centre Baraudi, Tehsil Karera is relevant. The last date for submission of applications was 28/4/2011.

3. Pursuant to aforesaid advertisement as many as 8 applications, including the application submitted by petitioner and respondent no.5, were received. After scrutiny of applications, the provisional select list was published on 3/11/2012, whereby, respondent no.5 secured 56.33 marks and was placed at serial no.1 while petitioner secured 52.66 marks and was placed at serial no.2.

4. The petitioner raised an objection regarding selection of respondent no.5 on the ground of validity of her BPL card. As per her objections, the respondent no.5 has secured BPL card by fraudulent means and since she was not possessed of BPL card on the date of advertisement and same was subsequently issued to her on 26/4/2011, the respondent no.5 was not entitled to get 10 marks towards BPL category. On receiving the objection, the Project Officer, Karera called a report from the Tehsildar, Karera. The Tehsildar, Karera asked for report from the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat. It was reported that name of husband of respondent no.5 does not find place in BPL list. Based upon this report, the Tehsildar vide order dated 26/8/2013 cancelled the BPL card of respondent no.5. However, still respondent no.5 was appointed on the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta vide order dated 1/3/2014 (Annexure P/10).

5. The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent no.5 by filing an appeal before the Collector, Shivpuri. The Additional Collector summoned the report regarding BPL status of respondent no.5 from the Sub- Divisional Officer, Karera. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Karera submitted his report on 5/2/2019 (Annexure P/12) reporting that the name of respondent's husband is not existing in the BPL list, and therefore, she was not entitled to get marks towards BPL category. The Additional Collector, vide order dated 3/1/2020 accordingly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and set aside the appointment of respondent no.5. The Additional Collector was of the view that since respondent no.5 was not having BPL card as on the date of advertisement, she was not entitled to get 10 marks. Accordingly, her appointment was cancelled. Consequently, the petitioner was appointed on the post in question on 15/1/2020 (Annexure P/13).

6. The respondent no.5 then challenged the order passed by the Additional Collector before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior. The appeal filed by respondent no.5 has been allowed vide order dated 22/4/2021 (Annexure P/1). Resultantly, the respondent no.5 is restored to her post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta. Challenging this order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the BPL card submitted by respondent no.5 was secured by illegal means inasmuch as on the date of issuance of