IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT

<>

ON THE 22

<>

nd

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

WRIT PETITION No. 13338 of 2023

<>

ROSHNI PATEL

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Devendra Kumar Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri Anshul

<>

Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner.

<>

Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil

<>

Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.6.

<>

Shri Pramod Kumar Chaurasia - Government Advocate for the

<>

State.

<>

ORDER

<>

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India challenging impugned order dated 16.05.2023

passed by respondent No.2 contained in Annexure-P/7 by which appeal

preferred by petitioner was dismissed and order of Collector dated

04.11.2022 was affirmed. By order of Upper Collector, District-Sagar

appointment on the post of Anganwadi Assistant was given to one

Anamika Rajput who is respondent No.6 in this case.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner has challenged

1 WP-13338-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6605

the impugned order on three counts:-

(i) appeal before Collector was preferred by respondent No.5

namely Tulsa Patel. No objection or appeal was preferred by Anamika

Rajput/respondent No.6. Collector had committed an error in examining

the appeal and granting relief to respondent No.6 in said appeal. It is

further submitted that appeal was preferred by Tulsa Patel/respondent

No.5 against order of appointment of petitioner-Roshni Patel. Tulsa Patel

did not challenge the position or marks granted to Anamika. Collector

had committed an error in examining the case of Anamika and granting

her relief in appeal when no such relief was sought by her. It is also

submitted that in counter claim relief to co-defendant cannot be granted.

Reliance is placed on judgment passed by Apex Court in case reported in

AIR 2025 SC 4284 {Rajul Manoj Shah Vs. Kiran Bhai Shankar Bhai

<>

Patel}.

<>

(ii) Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner raised second ground

before this Court that power to decide appeal is vested in Collector and

said power cannot be exercised by Additional Collector. Power vested on

a person is to be exercised by him only and same cannot be delegated

further to be exercised by another authority.

(iii) Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner raised third ground

before this Court that guidelines i.e. A-2(B)(5) for appointment of

Anganwadi Worker was not followed and less mark was awarded to

petitioner. Had guideline A-2(B)(5) been followed then petitioner would

2 WP-13338-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6605

be at No.1 position. As per aforesaid clause, if a candidate gets upto

40% of mark he is to be given 20 mark and if a candidate had got more

than 40% marks in Class-8 then on 2% he is to be granted 1 mark.

Petitioner ought to have been given 80 marks as per said scheme.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6

submitted that technicality of civil law is not to be applied in appeal

before Collector in a case of Anganwadi Worker. Appeal was preferred

by Tulsa/respondent No.5 but Collector is always free to examine the

records and give its finding on basis of facts before him. If Collector has

come to a conclusion on basis of facts that respondent No.6 is more

meritorious then Collector is free to pass an order in favour of

respondent No.6 though, said respondent has not sought relief by filing

an appeal. Principle that no relief can be given to a defendant against co-

defendant does not apply in the present case. Senior Counsel appearing

for respondent No.6 further submitted that as per definition mentioned in

MP Land Revenue Code, 1959. term "Additional Collector" means

Collector and Additional Collector enjoys same power and authority as

that of Collector, therefore, there is no sub-delegation of power and it

cannot be said that appeal cannot be heard by Additional Collector. On

issue No.3, Senior Counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that marks

has been given as per the grading. In cases of grading how marks is to be

allotted has been mentioned in the policy and said policy was followed.

No illegality can be said to have been done in allotment of marks. In

3 WP-13338-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6605

view of aforesaid, he prayed for dismissal of writ petition.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties and appreciated the argument

of both the parties.

5. Provision of first appeal and second appeal is provided in

circular of State Government. No specific procedure is prescribed for

deciding the said appeal. In view of same, appellate Court has to follow

the basic necessities of law i.e. natural justice, equity and good

conscience. Collector has provided opportunity of hearing to each of the

parties and has perused the records available before him and on basis of

said records after hearing the parties, Collector has to take decision

which is the best candidate to be selected for the post of Anganwadi

Worker. Strict technical rule of Code of Civil Procedure is not to be

followed. Rights of natural justice has been followed and order has been

passed fairly, therefore, hyper-technical approach of procedure may not

be permitted to defeat the truth. First ground

<>

raised by petitioner is

rejected.

<>

6. Additional Collector and Collector holds the same power and

word "Collector" also includes Additional Collector as per meaning

given in MP Land Revenue Code, 1959. If Collector allots work to

Additional Collector then he is not delegating his power but is only

doing work allotment. Therefore, Additional Collector can also hear

appeal of Anganwadi Worker under the circular of State Government. It

cannot be said that order is violated if Additional Collector had heard

4 WP-13338-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6605

appeal and passed order on its merits. Second ground

<>

raised by petitioner

is also rejected.

<>

7. Third ground raised by petitioner is in respect of allotment of

marks to respective candidates in this case. On perusal of circular issued

by Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Women and Child

Development dated 27.11.2020, it is found that marks are assigned to a

candidate in accordance with result of Class-5

th

. Department found that

candidate may pass Class-5

th

examination from different Boards and

system of marking of different Boards may be different. In some Boards,

marksheet is prepared on basis of actual marks received by a student

basis of grading of a student is actual marks and percentage received by

him in examination whereas in some Boards student is given grading A,

B, C, D on basis of marks obtained. For granting marks to different

students who are coming from different Boards, circular of MP

Government Women and Child Development Department lays down that

in case of grading from different Boards, marks to be allotted to a

student has to be as under:-

1ं

<>

एमपी

<>

बोड5

<>

<>

क7

<>

MेDडंग

<>

सीबीएसई

<>

क7

<>

<>

MेDडंग

<>

आईसीएस्ई

<>

क7

<>

<>

MेDडंग

<>

पLरणाम

<>

nेणी

<>

अंक

<>

<>

,वभाजन

<>

आ.वा.

<>

<>

काय5कता5

<>

आ.वा.

<>

<>

सहाियका

<>

/

<>

िमनी

<>

<>

काय5कता5

<>

01 A A1 A2 उrकृu 55 60

02B B1 B2 उpम 45 50

03C C1 C2 अaछा 35 40

04D D1 D2सामा:य 25 30

05E E1 E2

सुधार

योvय

- -

8. In aforesaid circular, it is also provided that marksheets which

5 WP-13338-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6605

are prepared on basis of marks in that cases student is to be given marks

as under:-

"IV. Kजन अंक सूिचयt म- पLरणाम अंक पwित के अनुसार

घो,षत हg उनक7 गणना आंगनवाड़b सहाियका के पLरपे/य म-

िन7नानुसार है:-

1. पांचवी कkा म- 40 jितशत तक 30 अंक एवं 40 jितशत से

अिधक अंक पर jrयेक 2 jितशत पर 1 अंक

2. आठवी कkा या उससे अिधक शैkKणक योvयता होने पर

10 अंक"

9. However, circular does not lay down that if marksheet is

prepared on basis of actual marks obtained by a student and, thereafter,

said marks are converted to Grade-A, B, C and D then such candidate is

to be assessed on basis of Clause-1(I) or Clause-1(IV). In such situation

what shall be the procedure for allotment of marks to a student, it is

found that student who gets 75% or more mark is granted Grade-A+,

student who gets 60-75% of marks is granted Grade-A, student who gets

45-60% of marks is granted Grade-B, student who gets 33-45% of marks

is granted Grade-C and student who gets less than 33% of marks is

granted Grade-D.

10. Considering aforesaid grading, it is found that comparison of

marks between two candidates will be difficult and very generalized.

One candidate who has got 60% of marks and another candidate who

has got 75% mark both are granted Grade-A and as per circular they are

6 WP-13338-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6605

(VISHAL DHAGAT)

<>

JUDGE

<>

to be given 60 marks which means candidate-A securing 60% marks and

candidate-B securing 75% marks though there is difference of 15% mark

between result of candidate-A and candidate-B but both will be granted

Grade-A and both will get 60 marks which will be discriminatory to a

student who has got more mark i.e. candidate-B. In such conditions, such

Clause-1(IV) is more accurate for making gap between more meritorious

and less meritorious will not be bridged as is done in grading system.

11. In these circumstances, if in a marksheet a student has been

given marks as well as grading then in the interest of justice and for

equity and fair play calculation of marks to be allotted to him shall be

made in accordance with Clause-1(IV) i.e. using the method of granting

marks on basis of actual marks obtained by him. Marksheet of petitioner

as well as respondent No.6 are not filed before this Court, therefore,

order passed by Collector and Commissioner are set aside.

12. Matter is remanded back before Collector to allot them marks

as per Clause-1(IV) of circular dated 27.11.2020 and whoever gets the

highest marks may be given appointment on the post.

13. With aforesaid, petition is disposed of.

<>

$A

7 WP-13338-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6605