Petition challenging Dindori Collector’s order dismissed

Source: The Hitavada      Date: 08 Sep 2018 13:50:03


 

Legal Correspondent,

A single bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Sujoy Paul has dismissed the petition filed by Shanti Bai, who is aggrieved by the order of Collector Dindori dated on October 16, 2017 which got stamp of approval by the appellate authority by order dated on June 29, 2018.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was having requisite qualification and was possessing BPL card on the last date of submission of candidature. These documents were filed alongwith her candidature. Against petitioner's selection and appointment as Aganwadi worker, the private respondent filed an appeal before the Collector. The Collector erroneously allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment of the petitioner. Petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the said order before the Commissioner.

Counsel for the petitioner advanced two-fold submissions. Firstly, the Government has never filed any document before the learned Collector to show that the name of petitioner or her husband was deleted from BPL list. Secondly, the eligibility of a candidate is to be seen on the basis of documents filed alongwith the candidature. Reliance is placed on 2013 (Draupati Tiwari vs State of MP & others). Deputy Advocate General supported the impugned orders.

The Judge said that "I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. The main reason for allowing the appeal is the document dated on February 17, 2011 produced by the appellant therein on the strength of which the learned Collector opined that name of petitioner's husband was deleted from BPL list and his BPL card was taken back and in place thereof APL card was directed to be issued. Thus, before the date of submission of candidature itself, the petitioner did not have the BPL card and status."

The petitioner filed the appeal memo along with interim application. A minute reading of appeal memo shows that petitioner nowhere stated or made attack on the order dated on February 17, 2011, relied upon by the Collector, by contending that the said document either was fake, frivolous, manufactured or passed by a competent authority. Even otherwise, the genuineness of the said certificate on the basis of which the entire edifice of Collector's order is standing, no pleadings are made in the appeal memo. A bald statement is made in the appeal memo that said document was not produced by the Government. If the said document dated on February 17, 2011 was incorrect or a fictitious document, the minimum essential requirement was to attack it by specific pleadings in the appeal memo.

The cancellation of BPL certificate as per order dated on February 17, 2011 is much prior to the date of submission of candidature. In absence of any attack to the said document and findings of learned Collector, I find no reason to interfere in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the case of Draupati Tiwari the factual position was different. There was no cancellation of BPL card in the said case before initiation of recruitment process. Thus, said judgement cannot be pressed into service in the present case.

As noticed, the singular reason on the strength of which appellate order dated on October 16, 2017 is passed is not called in question in the appeal memo. Hence, no fault can be found in the order of Collector affirmed by learned Commissioner. Accordingly, admission is declined. Petition is dismissed, the single bench said.

 

PIL seeking cancellation of transfer disposed of

Legal Correspondent,

In the matter related to the petitioner prayer for cancelling his transfer order, the single bench of MPHC comprising Justice Vandana Kasrekar has said that “The petition filed by the petitioner disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent Chief Conservator of Forest, Sagar, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

On receiving such a representation, respondent Chief Conservator of Forest, Sagar shall consider and decide the same within a period of one month thereof in accordance with law, by a speaking order. Accordingly,the petition is disposed of without any order as to costs."

The single bench has heard the petition filed by Bharat Singh Parmar. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for direction to the respondents to consider and decide his prayer for cancelling his transfer order. The petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Grade-II in the Forest Department. The petitioner vide order dated on July 10, 2017 has been transferred from North Forest Division, Sagar to Nauradehi Forest Division, Sagar. Being aggrieved by the said transfer order, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent Chief Conservator of Forest, Sagar. The said representation was duly forwarded by respondent Divisional Forest Officer, North Forest Division Sagar to respondent Chief Conservator of Forest, Sagar requesting for sending the proposal for cancellation of the transfer order of the petitioner, however, no action has been taken in the matter.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of one other similarly situated person his transfer order has been cancelled by the competent authority. He,therefore, prays that the similar benefit be also extended to the petitioner byconsidering his representation. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner furthersubmitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh representation before the respondent Chief Conservator of Forest, Sagar and he may be directed to decide the same. Advocate Ankur Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner, while Mohit Nayak, Government Advocate for the respondents/State.