--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 6436 / 2010 SMT. SUNITA W/O KAMAL JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MP & FIVE OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 28/11/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 8/3/10 and order dt. 8/8/10. The contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued in the month of August, 2009 inviting applications for the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' and the petitioner was selected in the process of selection and a final list was drawn by the Department on 9/12/2009. The contention of the petitioner is that she was placed on top of the merit list. However, on 4/3/10 an order was passed by the Programme Officer, Women & Child Development Distt. Ujjain declaring the petitioner as --- 2 --- ineligible for the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' only on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch on 3/2/10. The contention of the petitioner is that Clause 4 of the Policy dt. 10/7/07 will not come in way of the petitioner in the matter of appointment as her selection was done prior to 3/2/10 meaning thereby, prior to election of her husband as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Baghera. A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the private respondent is that respondent No.6 is more meritorious than the petitioner and an order was rightly issued by the Programme Officer dt. 4/3/10 keeping in view the fact that the husband of the petitioner was declared as Sarpanch on 3/2/10. She has also stated that she was subsequently appointed as 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' by an order dt. 8/3/10. It has also been stated that in the provisional list respondent No.6 was placed above the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued before this court that the writ petition is not maintainable before this court as alternative remedy is --- 3 --- available to the petitioner. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent State. Contention of the respondent is that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner and the petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court on this count alone. It has also been stated that appointment of the petitioner has already been cancelled on account of clause 4 of the policy issued by the State Government dt. 10/7/07. Learned counsel for the respondent State has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties. In the present case, the impugned order (Annexure P/4) provides only one solitary reason for not affording an appointment to the petitioner and the reason is that the petitioner's relative is holding the post of Sarpanch and in the light of clause 4 of Policy dt. 10/7/07, the petitioner cannot be appointed as 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta'. This Court has carefully gone through the policy issued by the State --- 4 --- Government. Clause 4 of the aforesaid policy reads as under: 4 p;fur dh tkus okyh vkaxuokMh dk;ZdrkZ dks uk rks Lo;a ljdkjh deZpkjh @ vf/kdkjh vFkok iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa @ uxjh; fudk;ksa ds fuokZphr vFkok euksfur lnL; gksuk pkfg, vkSj uk gh p;u izfdz;k ls izR;{k laca/k j[kus okyks dh lxs laca/kh gksuk pkfg,A lxs lacaf/k;ksa ls vfHkizk; ekrk] firk] HkkbZ] cgu] ifr] ifRu] iq=h&iq=h ,oa iq= o/kqA The aforesaid clause makes it very clear that persons who are being selected for the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' should not have their relatives as Sarpanch, employees of local bodies under the MP Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The clause further reveals that such relatives should not be directly connected with the process of selection. The only purpose of introducing the aforesaid clause is to ensure that a fair and impartial selection takes place for the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' and the relatives are not able to influence the process of selection. In the present case, at the time the advertisement was issued, the petitioner's husband was not a Sarpanch and at the time --- 5 --- the final list was published, the petitioner's husband was not elected. Final list was issued on 9/12/09 declaring the petitioner to be eligible for the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta'. The matter was relating to issuance of appointment of the petitioner was delayed by the respondents and on 3/12/10 the petitioner's husband was declared as Sarpanch and on 4/3/10 the impugned order has been passed by the Programme Officer. This Court is of the considered opinion that as the petitioner's husband was not holding the post of Sarpanch and was not at all remotely connected with the process of selection and merely because at a later stage he was declared as successful in the election for the post of Sarpanch that too on 3/1/10, the petitioner cannot be denied of her legitimate right of appointment to the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta'. Resultantly, the impugned order is accordingly set aside. This Court while issuing notices has also stayed (Annexure P/4) which is a subsequent order appointing the respondent No.6 as 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' and therefore as this Court has already quashed order dt. 4/3/10, the --- 6 --- respondents No.1 to 5 are directed to issue a consequential order in favour of the petitioner and the order dt. 8/3/10 is accordingly set aside. However, respondent No.6 shall be at liberty to file an appropriate appeal against the order of appointment of the petitioner in case she is contending that she is more meritorious than the petitioner. This Court has not expressed any opinion in respect of the process of selection insofar as it relates to the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No.6's merit and in case an appeal is preferred, the same shall be heard and decided in accordance with law and without being influenced by the order passed by this court. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR