Jashpur, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Commissioner Surguja Division
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29674 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2896 of 2018 Ku. Maniyaro Bai D/o Shri Landahu, Aged About 28 Years Caste Bhuinhar, R/o Village Marangi, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Commissioner Surguja Division (Ambikapur), District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Project Officer, Women And Child Development Project, Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
5. Smt. Heeramani Lakra, W/o Sitaram, R/o Village Marangi, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. For Respondent No. 5 : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 02-07-2025 2 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set- aside the order dated 19.02.2018 (Anrexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, whereby the appointment order of the petitioner dated 22.09.2011 has been set-aside. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work in the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta for the Village Marangi. 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 2) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and other eligible candidates submitted application forms for the post of Anganwadi Worker, Centre–Marangi, Tehsil–Bagicha, District–Jashpur in the year 2010. Petitioner was selected and an order of appointment was issued in her favor on 22.09.2011. Respondent No. 5 challenged the appointment of the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector, Jashpur which was allowed vide order dated 26.02.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Division–Ambikapur which was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2018. Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 19.02.2018. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector, Jashpur as well as Divisional Commissioner, Division–Ambikapur have recorded a categorical finding to the effect that the petitioner 3 was not a resident of Village Marangi and she could not produce documents to establish this fact according to the policy dated 02.04.2008. He further submits that initially, the petitioner was a resident of Village Khadakona and after her marriage to a resident of Village Marangi, she shifted there. He contends that the name of the petitioner was present in the voter list of the year 2010 wherein her name appears at S. No. 98. He further contends that relevant documents were filed along with the application form by the petitioner but those were not considered and the findings recorded by the Collector, Jashpur as well as Divisional Commissioner, Division–Ambikapur are contrary to the record. He argues that undisputedly, the petitioner was a voter of Village Marangi, therefore, the authorities ought to have treated her as a resident of Village Marangi. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Charles K. Skaria & Ors. Versus Dr.C. Mathew & Ors 1. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that according to Clause 1.5 of the policy dated 02.04.2008, the candidate must be a resident of the village where Anganwadi Center is proposed; the candidate should file either a copy of the Voter List of that village or a domicile certificate jointly issued by Sarpanch and Secretary of that Gram Panchayat. He further submits that the petitioner failed to submit these documents and only submitted the 1. AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1230 4 domicile certificate of Village Khadakona. He contends that the petitioner also failed to submit the Voter List along with the application form, therefore, the Collector, Jashpur and Divisional Commissioner, Division–Ambikapur rightly held that the petitioner was not eligible according to Clause 1.5 of the policy. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Charles K. Skaria (supra) held that if proof of a document like diploma etc. has been placed before the authority concerned, it subserves the factum of possession of said document/ diploma, meaning thereby, a candidate has to submit a document clarifying that the said document/diploma is in his possession. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced herein below:- "20. There is nothing unreasonable nor arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn this extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof_ of having. obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application. but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later. yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma, the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of 5 the diploma and is not an independent factor. The prospectus does say: "(4)(b) 10% to diploma holders in the selection of candidates to M.S., and M.D., courses in the respective subjects or sub- specialities. 13. Certificates to be produced :- In all cases true copies of the following documents have to be produced:- xxx xxx xxx (k) Any other certificates required along with the application. This composite statement cannot be read formalistic fashion. Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential in the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board, is to make procedure not the hand made but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence. 21. Before the selection committee adds special marks to a candidate based on a prescribed ground it asks itself the primary question: has he the requisite qualification? If he has the 6 marks must be added. The manner of proving the qualification is indicated and should ordinarily be adopted. But, if the candidate convincingly establishes the ground, though through a method different from the specified one, he cannot be denied the benefit. The end cannot be undermined by the means. Actual excellence cannot be obliterated by the choice of an incontestable but unorthodox probative process. Equity shall overpower technicality where human justice is at stake.” 7) Clause 1.5 of the policy specifically states that a candidate must be a resident of the same village where Anganwadi Centre is proposed. In the present case, the petitioner submitted her application on 06.09.2010. Perusal of the application form would show that no document was annexed to prove her residence instead a domicile certificate of another village i.e. Khadakona was annexed along with the application form and the same is evident from the record of the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bagicha. Domicile Certificate issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat was also not filed and a copy of the voter list was not annexed; even it was not mentioned that the petitioner is a voter of Gram Panchayat, Marangi. Thus, the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Charles K. Skaria (supra) is of no help to the petitioner. The voter list annexed along
Decision
with the writ petition was published after the submission of the application form therefore the same is not relevant. 8) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference with the 7 orders impugned passed by the Collector, Jashpur and Divisional Commissioner – Division Ambikapur. 9) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.03 11:30:54 +0530 Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE