Bombay High Court
Priyatama Sakharam Wakle vs The Divisional Commissioner ... on 4 April, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/858/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 858 OF 2016
Smt. Priyatama Sakharam Wakle,
Age 27 years, Occ. Nil,
r/o Kumbhephal, Tq. Jintur,
District Parbhani. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
2. The Chief Executive officer,
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.
3. The Child Development Officer,
Integrated Child Development
Project Officer at Jintur,
District Parbhani.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Jintur,
Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.
5. The Extension Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Jintur,
District Parbhani.
6. Smt. Suvernamala Subhash
Waghmare, age 30 years,
Occ. Nil, r/o Kumbhephal,
Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Amit A. Mukhedkar
AGP for Respondent 1 : Smt. Raut S.S.
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri Mundhe Sanjay V.
Advocate for Respondent 6 : Kale Ajeet B.
Respondents 3 to 5 : Served.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: April 04, 2016
...
WP/858/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is
taken up for final disposal.
4.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2015 delivered by
respondent No.2 by which the Complaint filed by respondent No.6,
challenging the appointment of the petitioner was allowed. The petitioner
is also aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2015 delivered by respondent
No.1, by which, Appeal No.3 of of 2015 filed by the petitioner has been
rejected.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite having fulfilled all the
requirements as described by the public proclamation dated 6.12.2013 and
having been rightly appointed on the basis of merit as an Anganwadi
Karyakarti, respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 have erroneously
interfered with the appointment of the petitioner and have set aside her
appointment.
6. The petitioner submits that if the merit list prepared by the
competent authority after the interviews were conducted is seen, the
WP/858/2016
petitioner stood at Sr. No.1 in the merit list and was rightly appointed.
7. The petitioner submits that an application for seeking appointment
as Anganwadi Karyakarti was filed by the petitioner. She claimed to be a
resident of village Kumbhephal, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani. She
claimed to have produced the residence certificate along with her
application. The interviews were conducted on 31.1.2014 and she was
rightly appointed as Anganwadi Karyakarti by order dated 10.2.2014.
8.
It is further stated that, Respondent No.6 has lodged a false
complaint against the petitioner alleging that she does not reside in village
Kumbhephal, but is a resident of village Savangi Mhalsa and therefore,
could not have been eligible for appointment. Respondent No.2 has
erroneously set aside her appointment by the impugned order dated
3.2.2015, after concluding that the petitioner is not a resident of village
Kumbhephal and is a resident of village Savangi Mhalsa. This conclusion is
perverse in the light of the fact that the proclamation requires that the
Gram Sevak and the Sarpanch shall issue a certificate of residence and such
a certificate is alone to be considered. The petitioner had produced such
certificate and the impugned order is an outcome of the concerned
authority having failed to take note of such a certificate.
9. He further submits that a false certificate was produced by
respondent No.6 obtained from the Tahsildar of Taluka Jintur, purportedly
WP/858/2016
showing the place of residence of the petitioner at village Savangi Mhalsa.
The said certificate does not find its origin in the records and there is no
outward number issued for the same. For this reason, respondent No.1
under the impugned order dated 10.12.2015 has directed an enquiry into
the matter. Shri Mukhedkar, therefore, strenuously submits that when
respondent No.6 has attempted to pollute the selection process, her
complaint deserve to be rejected only on this ground.
10.
He further submits that the petitioner had produced the residence
certificate of village Kumbhephal from the office of the Tahsildar, Jintur
dated 4.12.2014, which is prior to her appointment on 10.12.2014. The said
certificate clearly indicates that she was a resident of village Kumbhephal.
It is, therefore, submitted that both the authorities have misdirected
themselves and rather than considering the certificate produced as per the
proclamation, they have unnecessarily considered the contentions of
respondent No.6, who has approached the authorities with tainted hands. It
is, therefore, prayed that this petition be allowed and the petitioner be
reinstated in service.
11. Shri Mundhe, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent
No.2 and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 have
supported the impugned orders. It is primarily and seriously contended by
them that the petitioner had made a false statement that she had produced
the residence certificate along with the application pursuant to the
WP/858/2016
proclamation. On the date of interviews, no such residence certificate was
on record and yet respondent No.3 - Child Development Officer considered
the candidature of the petitioner and issued an appointment order. In fact,
respondent No.3 should have disqualified the petitioner in the scrutiny of
the applications. Having failed in performing its duties, action has been
initiated against respondent No.3.
12. It is further submitted that the petitioner was the resident of village
Kumbhephal prior to her marriage to Shri Balaji Khandare, who is a resident
of Savangi Mhalsa. After her marriage in 2011, she started residing with her
husband at his village. Pursuant to her marriage, she applied for entering
her name in the voters' list showing her residence as village Savangi Mhalsa
and accordingly her name was included in the said voters' list. Merely
because after her name was included in the voters' list of village Savangi
Mhalsa, that she did not get her name deleted from the voters' list of
Kumbhephal, would not make her a resident of village Kumbhephal.
13. It is submitted that this Court had dealt with Writ Petition No.3960 of
2014 filed by the respondent No.6. By order dated 14.7.2014, the learned
Division Bench directed respondent No.2 to consider the objections of the
present respondent No.6 and decide the issue. It is further submitted that
under orders of respondent No.2, an enquiry was conducted by considering
the statements of certain villagers from village Kumbhephal. The five
witnesses stated that the petitioner was residing at Kumbhephal prior to her
WP/858/2016
marriage and after her marriage she has been residing at Savangi Mhalsa
and her name appears at Sr. No.974 in the voters' list for that village.
14. It is then submitted that considering the above facts, respondent No.
1 has directed an enquiry against the Tahsildar. It is, therefore, prayed that
this petition be dismissed.
15. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates and have
gone through the record and proceedings received from respondent Nos.2
and 1 authorities, with their assistance.
16. The sequence of events assumes importance. The petitioner was a
resident of village Kumbhephal and her maiden name is Priyatama Wakale.
Her joining report indicates her name as Priyatama d/o Sakharam Wakale.
This would indicate that despite her marriage to Shri Balaji Khandare in
2011, she has not applied for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti by her
marital name. This apparently is with the intention of being supported by
the certificate issued by the Gram Sevak and the Sarpanch in her maiden
name so as to indicate that she is a resident of village Kumbhephal. It
cannot be over looked that she got married to Shri Khandare in 2011 and
thereafter, got her marital name entered in the voters' list of village
Savangi Mhalsa.
17. It is also cannot be ignored that the petitioner did not attach her
WP/858/2016
residence certificate to her application for seeking appointment. Record
reveals that no such residence certificate was produced on record along
with her application. Though it may not assume importance, the fact
remains that it is falsely stated by the petitioner that such residence
certificate was annexed to the application.
18. The proclamation dated 6.12.2013 has informs every candidate that
nine documents are to be annexed to the application. It had been clearly
stated that the application with the documents has to be produced and
filed before the last date by personally appearing in the office of the Child
Development Officer while filing it. Applications sent through posts were
not to be entertained.
19. In this backdrop, all the documents mentioned in the proclamation
were necessarily to be produced along with the application. One of the
nine documents is the residence certificate signed by the Sarpanch and the
Gram Sevak. Record reveals that even on the date of the interviews
31.1.2014 after which the merit list was prepared, the petitioner had failed
to produce a certificate showing her residence at village Kumbhephal. It
also cannot be ignored that after her appointment on 10.12.2014, she
moved the appropriate authorities on 12.2.2014 seeking deletion of her
name from the voters' list of village Savangi Mhalsa.
20. In my view, if all the above noted factors are to be taken into
WP/858/2016
account, it appears that the petitioner has made a systematic attempt to
falsely establish her residence at being from village Kumbhephal. Despite
she being included in the voters' list of Savangi Mhalsa by her marital name,
she has applied on her maiden name and has attempted to produce the
residence certificate dated 15.12.2013, which is prepared on her maiden
name after the proclamation was published on 6.12.2013. The entire effort
of the petitioner to mis-represent that she was a resident of village
Kumbhephal by getting a residence certificate prepared in her maiden
name on 15.12.2013, pursuant to the proclamation dated 6.1.2013, despite
she having been married in 2011, establishes that she has made every effort
to mis-represent the authorities.
21. In the light of the above, this petition is devoid of merits and is,
therefore, dismissed.
22. Considering the conduct of the petitioner and in the light of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of
U.P., reported at [(2013) 2 SCC 398], I am imposing costs of Rs.25,000/-
(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only/-) on the petitioner to be deposited with
respondent No.1 within four weeks from today. Needless to state, the
directions issued by respondent No.1 for causing an enquiry against the
errant officers is appreciated and it is expected that the enquiry is taken to
its logical end.
WP/858/2016
23. Rule is discharged. R & P to be returned forthwith.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
