Anganwadi Karyakarta Candidates Related Within Prohibited Degrees To Govt Employees Having Influence On Selection Process Are Ineligible: MP High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that when government employees who have direct/indirect influence in the selection process or members of local bodies are related within the prohibited degrees to an Anganwadi Karyakarta candidate, then that candidate will be held ineligible.It is pertinent to note here that the prohibited degrees of relationship are given in the Office...
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that when government employees who have direct/indirect influence in the selection process or members of local bodies are related within the prohibited degrees to an Anganwadi Karyakarta candidate, then that candidate will be held ineligible.
It is pertinent to note here that the prohibited degrees of relationship are given in the Office Memorandum No./F3-2/06/50-2 dated 27.05.2006 connected to such appointments.
The single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal clarified the right interpretation of Clause 4 in the memorandum and stated that direct involvement in the selection process/scrutiny process of a Karyakarta is no longer relevant for determining eligibility when the Panchayati Raj/ local body members already have a close relation with the candidate as specified in the memorandum.
“…intention of the policy makers is that any person who is related to the Government Employee having direct or indirect relationship with the selection process or elected or nominated members of the Panchayat Raj Institutions/Local Bodies, then that will be a disqualification…”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur observed while noting that the husband of respondent appointee is a Panch at the time of applying and comes with the ambit of a close relative as per the memorandum.
The petitioner in this case was aggrieved by the selection of the 6th respondent as the Anganwadi Karyakarta. Though an appeal was filed by her before the Commissioner (Sagar), the verdict was still in favour of the respondent appointee. Against this order, the petitioner preferred the current writ before the High Court.
In April 2022, a single-judge bench of the Court allowed this writ petition. Shortly thereafter, the respondent Karyakarta approached the Division Bench by submitting the grievance that she wasn't heard properly in the writ. Hence, the matter was remanded back to the single judge bench.
It was submitted that in Draupathi Tiwari v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2013), a division of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to disqualify a candidate whose brother-in-law (husband's brother) was a Panchayath Karmi since the relation does not come within the prohibited degrees mentioned in the memorandum.
Apart from this, it was argued that since a Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary has no role in the selection of an Anganwadi Karyakarta, the relation with the candidate, irrespective of the degree, will not affect the eligibility.
The appointment of an Anganwadi Karyakarta is carried out by a preliminary selection board and another committee constituted to scrutinize the objections raised against the results in the preliminary round of selection, the Court noted.
The single judge bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal, after going through the aforesaid order, noted that the first part of the ratio in Draupathi Tiwari, prohibiting the appointment of candidates with relationships that fall within the prohibited degrees, is binding upon the court. It reasoned that the first part is binding because it was in accordance with the spirit of the circular.
However, the court found the second part relating to prejudice not being caused without direct involvement of a candidate's next of kin to be unconvincing and not binding.
As long as the official memorandum is still in force, the second part of that judgement can only be regarded as 'obiter', the court clarified.
“…Giving some other interpretation by the Court is doing violence to the principles of interpretation and that violence cannot be accepted and perpetuated by this Court though I am conscious that I am sitting here as a Single Bench and the decision of the Division Bench have binding precedent to the extent they are not against the law. This law get support from the judgment of Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2014) 13 SCC 707…”, the court added.
In the end, the court also pointed out that obiter dictum is an observation that is not essential to determine the issue at hand, and therefore, it does not possess any authoritative value.
Accordingly, the petition to set aside the Commissioner's order that upheld the selection of Karyakarta was allowed by the court.
Advocate Brijesh Choubey appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Devendra Kumar Tripathi represented the Karyakarta appointee. Advocate Manas Mani Verma appeared for the State.
Case Title: Smt. Tulsa Bai Gond v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 4970 of 2014
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 22