2021 (11) TMI 1143 - HC - Indian Laws

Appointment of Anganwadi karyakarta/Sahayaka - in the scheme dated 10.7.2007 in clause v 2 v 2 it is provided that 10 marks have been prescribed for a woman of a family below poverty line - HELD THAT - When tested on this legal proposition then there is no iota of doubt that when petitioner herself admits that father-in-law and husband of the private respondent are part of the BPL card holders prior to the date of the advertisement then by inclusion private respondent on account of her marriage to a member of BPL family will become a BPL card holder and, therefore, the Collector and Commissioner have not erred in passing the impugned order calling for any interference. Therefore there is no error in the impugned order calling for any interference - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to appointment based on BPL category marks allocation and subsequent order by Collector and Additional Commissioner.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges an order upholding the appointment of a candidate based on the allocation of marks for holding a Below Poverty Line (BPL) card. The petitioner and a private respondent were candidates for the position of Anganwadi karyakarta/Sahayaka, with the private respondent initially scoring higher due to the BPL category marks. However, an objection was raised regarding the private respondent's entitlement to these marks, leading to a reduction in her score and the petitioner being placed first in the final select list. The private respondent appealed, claiming her family members were listed in the BPL ration card before the advertisement date, entitling her to the marks as per departmental schemes. The Collector accepted the appeal, directing the grant of BPL marks, resulting in the private respondent surpassing the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the private respondent's name was not on the ration card, and the Collector's decision was arbitrary, citing a High Court judgment on cut-off dates for eligibility.

The petitioner argued that the private respondent's inclusion in the BPL category was not justified, emphasizing that the private respondent's name was not on the ration card and alleging manipulations in the scrutiny process. The petitioner also highlighted the principle that no benefits can be derived from subsequent additions post-advertisement issuance. In contrast, the private respondent's counsel supported the order, citing the specific provisions in the departmental scheme regarding marks for BPL category women candidates. The Government Advocate also supported this stance.

The judgment delves into the legal interpretation of the forward slash symbol (/) used in the context of conditions for BPL card eligibility. It references previous court decisions on the interpretation of positive and negative conditions separated by "or," emphasizing that in this case, the private respondent, by virtue of her marriage into a BPL family, qualifies as a BPL card holder. The judgment concludes that the Collector and Commissioner did not err in their decision, given the private respondent's familial connection to existing BPL cardholders before the advertisement date. The judgment dismisses the petition, finding no grounds for interference in the impugned order, and upholds the appointment based on the BPL category marks allocation.