In a significant judgment, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, reinstated an Aanganwadi Worker whose appointment had been wrongly cancelled on technical grounds. The case, Smt. Preeti Dhakad vs. State of M.P. & Others(W.P. No. 3520/2022), was argued by Advocate Sourav Singh Tomar, who successfully secured justice for his client.
Background of the Case
Preeti Dhakad was selected and appointed as an Aanganwadi Worker at Aanganwadi Centre No. 821, Village Ramgarh, District Shivpuri, after following the prescribed selection process. However, her appointment was later cancelled by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that she had claimed Below Poverty Line (BPL) status using a card issued in the name of her fatherinlaw rather than her husband. The cancellation resulted in another candidate, respondent no. 6, being appointed in her place.
Arguments by Advocate Sourav Singh Tomar
Advocate Tomar argued that BPL cards are family-based documents (commonly known as “Parivar Patra”) issued for the entire household and not for individuals alone. The petitioner’s name was clearly listed as a family member on the BPL card, making her eligible for the marks awarded under the BPL category. He also emphasized that allegations regarding her experience certificate were irrelevant since any action on that issue was exclusively within the department’s authority, not a rival candidate’s concern. Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Bibhudatta Mohanty vs. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 16, he pointed out that once the cancellation of an appointment is found illegal, all consequential actions, such as appointing another candidate, automatically fall.
The Court’s Findings
The High Court agreed with these arguments, noting that the BPL card clearly covered the entire family, including the petitioner. The claim that the petitioner’s sister-in-law had Above Poverty Line (APL) status was held irrelevant to the petitioner’s eligibility. The Court found the Additional Commissioner’s decision perverse and ordered immediate reinstatement of Preeti Dhakad, quashing all consequential orders, including the appointment of respondent no. 6.
Impact of the Judgment
This judgment highlights two important principles:
- Family-based eligibility: Benefits like BPL status must be assessed in the context of the whole family, not individual names.
- Automatic invalidation of consequential actions: When an appointment is wrongly set aside, all related administrative decisions collapse.
Conclusion
Through effective representation by Advocate Sourav Singh Tomar, the petitioner regained her rightful employment and reputation. This case reinforces how strong legal advocacy and correct interpretation of eligibility norms can restore justice for public service employees.