1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

          "7.1 to call the entire selection and appeal records.

          7.2 to quash the impugned orders under Annexure P-13 and P-15.

          7.3 Any other relief which deemed to be fit may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."

2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2009, applications were invited by the respondents for the post of Aanganwadi Worker in respect of Ward No. 1 Ajaygarh, District Panna. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 offered their candidatures for the aforesaid post. The applications were to be submitted between 1.8.2009 to 17.8.2009. The petitioner submitted all the documents pertaining to Ward No.1 on 17.8.2009. Respondent No. 5 also applied for the aforesaid post but all her documents were pertaining to Ward No. 2 including the document as regards inclusion of her name in the Voters List. Respondent No. 5 also submitted the document to the effect that her name was there in the BPL List of Ward No. 2 only. In Ration Card also respondent No. 5 was being shown as the resident of Ward No. 2. The petitioner has also placed on record the document contained in Annexure P-10 which is a Voters List of Ward No. 2 and in the same, the name of respondent No. 5 was being shown at serial number 366 and in the BPL List of Ward No. 2 also the name of the husband of respondent No. 5 is shown at serial number 39. It is further contended that the process of delimitation of the Wards was initiated after completion of selection process and later on vide document contained in Annexure P-7, respondent No. 5 was shifted from Ward No. 2 to Ward No. 1 but the fact remains that on the date of submission of the application forms, the documents submitted by respondent No. 1 pertained to Ward No. 2 only and the District Level Committee had considered the objection of the petitioner and turned down the candidature of respondent No. 5. Along with the rejoinder, the documents contained in Annexure P-18 and P-19 have been placed on record, which clearly reflects that respondent No. 5 was the resident of Ward No. 2. It is further contended that respondent No. 5 was also guilty of manipulation in the documents, which is evident from Annexure P- 20, which is a building certificate issued by Nagar Panchayat Ajaygarh and in the said document, manipulation regarding the number of the Ward is evident. Thus, it is submitted that in such circumstances, the Collector as well as the Commissioner fell in error while passing the impugned orders contained in Annexure P-13 dated 15.11.2011 and P-15 dated 20.4.2012 respectively, inasmuch as, subsequent production of the Voters List after the cut-off date was of no consequence. Unfortunately, the Collector has taken into consideration the documents, which were not filed by respondent No. 5 along with the application form and this aspect is evident from the penultimate paragraph of the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by the Collector.

3. Per contra, the counsel for the State submits that on account of delimitation of Nagar Panchayat, Ajaygarh, the name of respondent No. 5 was included in Ward No. 1 and accordingly, the Voters List of the year 2009 was prepared and in the said list, respondent No. 5 was shown to be the resident of Ward No. 1 and this aspect was taken into consideration by the Collector in the impugned order.

4. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.

5. Heard submissions and perused the record.

6. Indisputably, name of respondent No. 5 was not included in the Voters List of Ward No. 1 by 15.10.2009 and her name was included in the Voters List of Ward No. 1 on 15.10.2009 which is evident from the document contained in Annexure P-7. Respondent No. 5 submitted her application form which has been brought on record as Annexure P-18 filed along with the rejoinder and along with the application form, respondent No. 5 submitted Ration Card in which she was being shown as the resident of Ward No. 2 and building certificate was also produced which apparently contains manipulation so far as the number of the Ward is concerned. There are no initial or signatures beside the alleged manipulation in Annexure P- 20. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No. 5 has also filed return but in the same return, it is nowhere stated that the Voters List on which respondent No. 5 claiming herself to be a resident of Ward No. 1, was produced along with the application form while seeking appointment as Aanganwadi Worker.

7. The issue as regards submission of eligibility criteria after the cut- off date is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54 has held in paragraph 16 & 20 as under:

          "16. Indisputably, the appellant herein did not hold the requisite qualification as on the said cut-off date. He was, therefore, not eligible therefor.

          XX XX XX XX

          20. Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application."

8. Further, the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & others Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan & another passed in Civil Appeal No.7677/2021 has held in Paras 8 & 9 as under :-

          "8. At the cost of repetition, it is to be observed that in the earlier round of litigation, the learned Single Judge specifically observed that there is no pleading in the writ petition that the petitioner had annexed his NCC 'B' certificate alongwith the original application. Once, it is found that the respondent No.1- original writ petitioner did not submit the photocopy of the NCC 'B' certificate alongwith the original application which was the requirement as per the advertisement and the cut-off date as per the advertisement was 22.02.2004 and he produced the same after the physical test on 15.01.2007, the appointing authority rightly held that he shall not be entitled to additional five marks of NCC 'B' certificate. Though in the select list dated 08.09.2007, he was awarded 17 marks, which included five additional marks of NCC 'B' certificate, the appointing authority disagreed with the same on the ground that as photocopy of the NCC 'B' certificate was not produced alongwith his application form, which was the requirement as per the advertisement, he shall not be entitled to five additional marks of NCC 'B' certificate. Therefore, when a decision was taken on the representation made by the respondent No.1 - original writ petitioner which was pursuant to the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being CWJC No.5431 of 2008, the authority rightly refused to allot/award five additional marks of NCC 'B' certificate.

          9. As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority. Also, only those documents, which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered. Therefore, when the respondent No.1 - original writ petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC 'B' certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC 'B' certificate. In these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent No.1 - original writ petitioner on the post of Constable considering the select list dated 08.09.2007 and allotting five additional marks of NCC 'B' certificate."

9. The Division Bench of this Court in Draupati Tiwari (Smt.) vs. State of M.P. and others, W.A. No.900/2011 decided on 25.02.2013 has held in Para-8 as under:-

          "8 : The law in respect of the specific dates, as also the eligibility conditions with respect to the educational qualification has been well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan[1993 Supp (3) SCC 168] and in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, [(2007) 4 SCC 54], wherein it has been categorically held that the crucial date on which a candidate must possess the requisite qualification would be the last date on which the applications are to be submitted. In case a specific date is prescribed for filling the forms, that will be the date on which the candidate must possess the essential qualification. If on that day educational eligibility was not available to the respondent No. 5, as her result of supplementary examination was not declared by that time, she was not eligible to make an application nor the same was to be considered. Even if with the permission she has made the application, it was more so necessary for her to submit a proof of passing of the eligibility examination at least on the date the selection was made. The document produced by the appellant before this Court, the certificate issued by the Centre Incharge and the Principal of the Higher Secondary School is not controverted in its true sense. It was not proved by the respondent No. 5 that the result of her examination was declared much before the date the process of selection was over. In case of Pramod Kumar v. UP. Secondary Education Services Commission, [(2008) 7 SCC 153], the Apex Court has laid down that all eligibility conditions are to be verified before permitting any candidate to take part in selection. If the application of respondent No. 5 was scrutinised and her candidature was rejected because she had failed to produce the proof of passing the qualifying examination, again no wrong was committed by the selection Committee. Though it is stated at bar that the result of examination was seen by the respondent No. 5 in internet, no attempt whatsoever was made to produce a proof of such declaration of result either before the selection committee or writ Court or before the writ appellate Court. The respondent No. 5 could have obtained a certificate in that respect from the competent authority of the M.P. state open School Board under Right to Information Act. The writ petition itself was filed in the year 2008, such were the allegations made by the appellant in the writ petition, but nothing was placed on record by the respondent No. 5 to show that she has in fact passed the examination on the date when the selection process was completed or prior to the said date. Rejection of her candidature was thus cannot be said to be unjustified."

10. In the present case, by the cut-off date i.e. 17.8.2009, respondent No. 5 did not produce any document to demonstrate that she was the resident of Ward No. 1. The documents produced along with the application form pertained to Ward No. 2 and subsequent inclusion of the name of respondent No. 5 in the Voters List of Ward No. 1 is immaterial, inasmuch as, the Collector as well as the Commissioner were required to only ascertain as to whether all the certificates pertained to domicile of respondent No. 5 at the time of submission of the application form. Therefore, subsequent inclusion of the name of respondent No. 5 in the Voters List of Ward No. 1 does not entitle respondent No. 5 to be appointed as such.

11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid conspectus, the petition is allowed . Impugned orders contained in Annexure P-13 dated 15.11.2011 and Annexure P-15 dated 20.4.2012 passed by the Collector and the Commissioner respectively stand set aside. The appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner is restored with all consequential benefits except backwages.