(Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 4472 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17051 of 2017], decided on July 28, 2021
Gayatri Devi ______________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others ________________ Respondent(s).
With
Civil Appeal No. 4473 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30551 of 2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4472 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17051 of 2017) and Civil Appeal No. 4473 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30551 of 2017)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 07.03.2017 and 21.04.2017, as passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 8009/2011 and Review Petition No. 289 of 2017 respectively, whereby the High Court, while allowing the writ petition filed by the present respondent no. 7, set aside the order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 and directed reinstatement of the respondent no. 7 (writ petitioner) as Anganwari worker with effect from the date she first became eligible for the same; and then, also dismissed the review petition filed by the present appellant.
3. Though learned counsel for the parties have made several submissions pertaining to the merits of the case and competing claims of the appellant and respondent No. 7 but, we have noticed two basic relevant aspects of the matter that the appellant did not file her reply before the High Court and then, the High Court proceeded to assume that the present appellant-Gayatri Devi was below 18 years of age on 01.01.2009 and hence, she was not entitled to be appointed as Anganwari worker.
4. It has been pointed out, and rightly so, that as regards the question of age, the High Court has obviously committed a fundamental error in referring to the particulars of another candidate with the first name “Gayatri”, who was referred to as Smt. Gayatri Dwivedi but those particulars were not of the present appellant-Smt. Gayatri Devi. It appears that on behalf of the present appellant and also the State, the relevant facts were not pointed out before the High Court at the time of disposal of the writ petition. As noticed, the present appellant and also the State had not filed their replies before the High Court and it appears that for want of proper assistance on the part of the contesting parties, the High Court had fallen in the said error. It appears further that though a review petition was filed on behalf of the present appellant before the High Court but therein, the learned counsel for the appellant essentially attempted to submit as to why and how he could not appear at the time of hearing of the writ petition but the High Court was not satisfied with such contentions and found them insufficient for invoking the review jurisdiction.
5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 (writ petitioner) has fairly submitted that he is not pressing on the said aspect relating to the age of the candidate. In fact, such an aspect was not even the ground of challenge by the writ petitioner.
6. As regards the other aspects pertaining to the merits of the case, we find that on the competing claims of the appellant on one hand and respondent No. 7 on the other, particularly with reference to the entitlement of marks as BPL card holder, several issues need determination with reference to the record of the case. The High Court in its impugned order dated 07.03.2017, though has referred to the BPL card issued to the husband of the writ petitioner but, the question as to whether the appellant was a valid BPL candidate on the date of the application, seems to have not gone into consideration. That being the position, the material issues appear to have not been determined in the correct perspective with reference to the relevant material. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 has fairly submitted that in the given circumstances, the matter may be remanded to the High Court for consideration afresh. The suggestion appears to be reasonable and the learned counsel for the appellant has also agreed on the same.
7. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned orders are set aside; and Writ Petition No. 8009/2011 is restored for reconsideration by the High Court while extending an opportunity to the present appellant and also to the State to file their respective replies within two weeks from today.
8. The matter being related to the engagement as Anganwari worker and the writ petition having been filed in the year 2011, we would request the High Court to assign a reasonable priority to the matter and make an endeavour to dispose of the same at the earliest.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17051/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-03-2017 in WP No. 8009/2011 passed by the High Court Of M.P. Principal Seat At Jabalpur)
Gayatri Devi.….Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.….Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 30551/2017 (IV-C)
Date : 28-07-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.S. Khanduja, Adv.
Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Adv.
Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AAG
Mr. Varun Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Varun Mohan, Adv.
Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR
Mr. J.P. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Firoz Saifi, Adv.
Mr. Shafiq Khan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
9. Leave granted.
10. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
———
