Bombay High Court
Lalita Bhanudas Kirtishahi @ ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 28 October, 2015
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 904.wp.4764.15
kps
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4764 OF 2015
LALITA BHANUDAS KIRTISHAHI.
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Gunale Prakash G.
AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Shri K.N.Lokhande.
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Shri A.B.Gaikwad.
...
ig CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 28th October, 2015
Oral Order:
1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2014
passed by Respondent No.3/ Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad thereby, setting aside the appointment of the Petitioner as an
"Anganwadi Madatnis".
2 The Petitioner further assails the order of Respondent No.2/
Divisional Commissioner dated 07.01.2015 by which the appeal preferred
by the Petitioner has been rejected.
3 I have heard Shri Gunale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri Gaikwad, learned
*2* 904.wp.4764.15
Advocate for Respondent No.4.
4 It is not in dispute that an advertisement was published on
12.04.2013 calling for applications for appointment to the positions of
Anganwadi Karyakarti, Mini Anganwadi Karyakarti, Anganwadi and Mini
Anganwadi Madatnis. It is also not in dispute that each applicant was
mandated to submit the marks memo of SSC (10th standard) or 07th
standard, as is applicable, along with the application. It is also not in
dispute that the Petitioner, who claims to have cleared the 07 th standard,
did not annex a copy of her marks memo along with the application to
indicate that she had cleared 07th standard examination. Despite this,
going by the merit list, the Petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi
Madatnis on 16.12.2013.
5 Respondent No.5 challenged the appointment of the
Petitioner on the ground that besides filing the application for the post of
Anganwadi Madatnis, the marks memo which was mandatorily required
to be annexed along with the application, was not before the Authorities.
Despite the same, she was allotted the marks as per the prescribed
marking pattern on account of her claim that she had acquired the
educational qualification of 07th standard. Considering the complaint,
Respondent No.3 set aside the appointment of the Petitioner.
*3* 904.wp.4764.15
6 The Petitioner preferred Appeal No.18/2014 before
Respondent No.2/ Divisional Commissioner. By the impugned order dated
07.01.2015, Respondent No.2 ruled that the Petitioner had not annexed
the 7th standard marks memo with the application as required under the
advertisement and hence, she could not have been allotted the marks on
the basis of her educational qualification. The order of Respondent No.3
was, therefore, upheld.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that though she did not
annex the marks memo to her application, she had made a statement that
she was 07th standard qualified. It is further canvassed that the
Respondents cannot set aside her appointment only because she had not
produced the marks memo. It is hence, prayed that the impugned order be
set aside and the Petitioner be restored to the position of Anganwadi
Madatnis.
8 The learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 and the learned
AGP have opposed this petition. The contention is that the advertisement
was published in order to ensure that the applicants are made aware as to
which documents are necessarily required to be annexed to their
applications. Each applicant was, therefore, requested to prepare a
compilation of documents as set out in the advertisement.
*4* 904.wp.4764.15
9 In the event, any application is entertained without
documents, it would create a chaotic situation. The exercise of allotment
of marks at the preliminary stages based on documents as required to be
filed, would be truncated. The selection process which is required to be
completed within a time frame as announced in the advertisement, would
never be completed. Applicants may seek exemption and may not file their
documents along with the application. So also, the marks to be allotted
based on the percentage of marks scored in the 7th or 10th standard, as the
case may be, cannot be awarded in the absence of the marks memo.
10 Both the learned Advocates indicate the various documents
that are required to be filed along with such applications from clauses (1)
to (8) of the advertisement dated 15.09.2011. It is, therefore, submitted
that if any latitude is given to any applicant, the Respondents would find
it extremely difficult to scrutinize the applications and conduct the
preliminary process of allotment of marks based on the documents
annexed to the applications. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned
orders need no interference.
11 I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates as
recorded above.
*5* 904.wp.4764.15
12 I have no doubt that if the applicants are given latitude of not
filing the documents in the light of the advertisement published, the
Competent Authority dealing with such applications and empowered to
allot the marks as per the conditions set out in the advertisement, would
find it extremely cumbersome to process the applications. There would be
incomplete allotment of the marks. Results on the basis of the applications
and documents annexed, would not be declared as the process itself
would be incomplete.
13 The officials would either have to postpone the results or they
would have to keep sending reminders to the applicants to produce the
documents which are not annexed to the applications. I, therefore, do not
find that the contentions of the Petitioner deserve any consideration in the
light of the above facts.
14 As such, I do not find that Respondent Nos.3 and 2 have
committed any error in passing the impugned orders.
15 The Writ Petition being devoid of merit is, therefore,
dismissed.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
