Poonam Yadav And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Petitioner - Poonam Yadav has filed W.P. No.23282/2018 seeking relief to quash the order dated 24.06.2017 (Annexure P-20) passed by Additional Collector, Betul; order dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P-23) passed by Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad as also order dated 22.02.2019 (Annexure P-29) passed by respondent No.4 - Project Officer.

Petitioner - Sudha Yaduvanshi has filed W.P. No.16364/2019 seeking relief to quash the order dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by Commissioner and order dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure P-4B) passed by Sub Divisional Officer.

The brief facts of the case as stated in W.P. No.23282/2018 are that an advertisement was issued on 16.08.2016 for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Chopna, Gram Panchayat, Hathnor, Tahsil Amla, District Betul. On the basis of said advertisement, petitioner had filed an application for appointment. The last date of filing the application form was 30.08.2016. On this date petitioner filed an application along with certificate issued by Tahsildar showing his residence. The certificate was dated 27.08.2016. The Collector as well as Commissioner held that certificate issued by the Tahsildar was cancelled subsequently and the certificate has been obtained by making false declaration in the application form. It was mentioned by Upper Collector in its order dated 24.06.2017 that petitioner is not resident of Village Chopna and, therefore, she is not entitled to 10 marks. Resultantly, respondent No.6 was given appointment on the pot of Anganwadi Worker.

The order passed by the Upper Collector was challenged before Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Collector and has held that petitioner was not born in village Chopna. The local residence certificate issued to the petitioner has been cancelled by Tahsildar vide order dated 27.08.2016. It was further observed that there was overwriting in BPL card of the petitioner and in ration card also the BPL number is different. In ration card the total number of family persons were mentioned as five but inside the ration card seven members have been mentioned which shows the name of two persons namely Pramila and Poonam has been added later on. It was also mentioned by Additional Commissioner that in marriage card which has been filed by petitioner it is mentioned that other name of Poonam is Savitri who was married with Shyam Mohan on 19.04.2014. The name of petitioner's father is mentioned as Balaji Patel whereas the name of petitioner's father is Chunnilal and, therefore, there is contradiction regarding name of father of petitioner and marriage documents also become suspicious. Additional Collector had come to finding that documents filed by the petitioner are doubtful in nature and, therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court on the ground that order passed by Tahsildar cancelling the local residence certificate has been set aside by the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal and, therefore, petitioner is resident of Chopna and she is entitled to 10 marks and she may be given the appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker. Petitioner has filed the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer along with I.A. no.4178/2019 as Annexure P-31. On the basis of said document, petitioner has made a prayer for allowing the writ petition.

In the connected writ petition bearing W.P. No.16364/2019 which is filed by Sudha Yaduvanshi order passed by Sub Divisional officer and Commissioner on the issue of grant of local residence certificate is under challenge. The order passed by Tahsildar cancelling the local residence certificate was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer by Poonam Yadav. The Sub Divisional Officer has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Tahsildar. The order passed by Sub Divisional Officer was further challenged before Additional Commissioner. Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner namely Sudha Yaduvanshi on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.

It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.16364/2019 that Sub Divisional Officer has not condoned the delay in filing of appeal and has passed the order on merits. There is no mention of condoning the delay in the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as the order by Sub Divisional Officer is passed without condoning the delay, therefore, the order is vitiated. W.P. No.23282/2018 is filed on the ground that the local residence certificate which is cancelled by the Tahsildar has been set aside by Sub Divisional Officer and, therefore, she is entitled for grant of appointment.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of with a direction that private parties in both the writ petitions will approach the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer will hear the parties regarding condonation of delay and will then pass orders on the merits of the case. As per the order of local residence certificate to be passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (which will be subject to appeal), Project Officer will proceed to give marks of local residence and appointment to the person who is most meritorious. Meanwhile, status quo will be maintained as far as working on the post of Anganwadi Worker is concerned and respondent No.6 in W.P. No.23282/2018 who is appointed as Anganwadi Worker will continue to work till final order is passed by the Sub Divisional Officer regarding domicile certificate, which will be subject to appeal.

With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions are disposed off.