-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a landmark ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Smt. Laxmi Shukla, who had challenged the cancellation of her appointment as an Aanganwadi Worker. The Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner, Rewa Division, holding that her claim to Below Poverty Line (BPL) bonus marks was based on ineligible and suspicious documentation.
A single-judge bench of Justice Vinay Saraf ruled that: “Eligibility for BPL bonus marks must be established by valid documentary evidence issued before the date of advertisement. Manipulated, overwritten, or post-dated documents cannot be the basis for appointment.”
The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Commissioner’s decision to cancel the petitioner’s appointment on the grounds that:
The petitioner relied on a BPL card issued in the name of her co-sister (Jethani), which is not acceptable proof under government guidelines.
The card contained overwriting, making it unreliable and legally unsustainable.
Her Samagra ID, which was later used to claim BPL status, was updated after the advertisement date, making it invalid for eligibility purposes.
Background: Appointment Cancelled Over Disputed BPL Bonus Marks
The Women and Child Development Department, Madhya Pradesh, had issued an advertisement on October 6, 2016, inviting applications for Aanganwadi Worker positions. The selection process included awarding 10 additional marks to candidates from BPL families, provided they furnished valid documentation.
The petitioner, Smt. Laxmi Shukla, initially ranked sixth in the provisional selection list. However, after she submitted objections claiming BPL status based on her co-sister’s ration card, she was awarded 10 bonus marks, which elevated her to the first position in the final list, leading to her appointment on April 27, 2017.
The third respondent, Shashikala Kushwaha, challenged the appointment before the Collector, Rewa, arguing that:
The BPL card relied upon by the petitioner was in her co-sister’s name, not her husband’s, father’s, or father-in-law’s name, as required by government guidelines dated July 10, 2007.
The BPL card contained overwriting, raising doubts about its authenticity.
Her Samagra ID, which was later used to claim BPL status, was updated after the advertisement date.
The Collector dismissed the challenge, but the Commissioner, Rewa Division, overturned the decision on November 29, 2024, and set aside the petitioner’s appointment, prompting her to approach the High Court.
Overwritten and Post-Dated Documents Rendered Ineligible
The High Court found that the petitioner’s claim to BPL status was flawed for multiple reasons:
Co-Sister’s BPL Card Not Acceptable Under Government Guidelines
The Court referred to guidelines issued on July 10, 2007, which clearly state that: “For a married woman, BPL status can only be claimed if the card is in the name of her husband or father-in-law. A co-sister’s (Jethani) BPL card does not qualify.”
The Court ruled that: “The petitioner’s reliance on her co-sister’s ration card is impermissible under the guidelines. She failed to provide any proof that she was a legitimate member of a BPL family at the relevant time.”
Overwriting in BPL Card Undermined Credibility
The Scrutiny Committee had initially rejected the BPL claim, noting overwriting in the ration card. The Commissioner also held that the modifications were suspicious and lacked official authentication.
The High Court upheld this finding, ruling that: “Documents containing overwriting and subsequent alterations cannot form the basis of eligibility. The integrity of official records is paramount in public appointments.”
Post-Dated Samagra ID Entry Invalidates BPL Claim
The petitioner’s Samagra ID was updated on October 17, 2016, after the advertisement date of October 6, 2016. Citing Sunita Yadav v. State of M.P., WP No. 7439/2019, the Court held that:
“Documents generated after the advertisement date cannot be considered for determining eligibility. The petitioner’s BPL claim was built on a post-dated Samagra entry, making it invalid.”
Past Precedents Affirm the Commissioner’s Order
The Court relied on multiple precedents that disqualified candidates for using ineligible or suspicious documents:
Smt. Satya Shukla v. State of M.P. (2020) – Overwriting in a BPL card disqualifies a candidate from receiving bonus marks.
Preeti Shakya v. State of M.P. (2024) – A brother-in-law’s BPL card was ruled insufficient for eligibility, similar to the present case.
Sunita Yadav v. State of M.P. (2019) – Documents issued after the advertisement date are legally invalid for eligibility claims.
Final Judgment: Appointment Rightly Cancelled
Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court upheld the Commissioner’s order cancelling the appointment: “The petitioner failed to establish that she belonged to a BPL family before the advertisement date. Her reliance on a co-sister’s ration card, the presence of overwriting, and post-dated Samagra ID updates render her claim unsustainable.”
The writ petition was dismissed, confirming Shashikala Kushwaha’s rightful claim to the Aanganwadi Worker post.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
• BPL Bonus Marks Require Proof Prior to Advertisement Date – Candidates must establish BPL status before the selection process begins.
• Co-Sister’s Ration Card Not Valid Proof – Only the husband’s, father’s, or father-in-law’s BPL card is acceptable for married women.
• Overwriting in Government Documents Raises Suspicions – Tampered documents cannot be the basis for public appointments.
• Post-Dated Updates to Official Records Are Invalid – Changes to Samagra ID or ration cards after advertisement dates are legally unacceptable.
• Reaffirmation of Judicial Precedents – The decision aligns with past rulings disqualifying candidates for fraudulent or ineligible BPL claims.
This ruling strengthens transparency and accountability in public appointments, ensuring that only genuinely eligible candidates benefit from government welfare schemes.
Date of Decision: 30 January 2025
