Sau. Rekha Subhas Daberao vs Divisional Commissioner, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3677 Bom

                                    1                                        wp2217.14




                                                                          
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                  
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     WRIT PETITION NO.2217 OF 2014




                                                 
     Sau. Rekha Subhas Daberao,
     Aged about 33 years, 
     Occupation - Service, 




                                       
     R/o Sagwa Mel, Post - Ghungsi, 
     Tahsil - Murtizapur, District - Akola.
                              ig                           ....       PETITIONER


                         VERSUS
                            
     1) Divisional Commissioner, 
         Amravati Division, Amravati.
      


     2) Chief Executive Officer, 
   



         Zilla Parishad, Akola.

     3) Child Development Project Officer, 
         Integrated Child Development Scheme 





         Panchayat Samiti, Murtizapur,
         Tahsil - Murtizapur and Member 
         Secretary Selection Committee. 

     4) Sau. Sonali Dattatraya Tiware,





         Aged about 28 years, 
         Occupation - Nil,
         R/o Sagwa Mel, Post - Ghungsi,
         Tahsil - Murtizapur, District - Akola.

     5) State of Maharashtra, 
         through its Secretary, 
         Women and Child Development
         Department, Government of Maharashtra,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai.                               ....       RESPONDENTS




    ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:37:23 :::
                                             2                                              wp2217.14




                                                                                        
     ______________________________________________________________




                                                                
                  Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioner, 
             Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 & 5, 
          Shri Kiran Malokar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3,
                Shri S.D. Khadi, Advocate for the respondent No.4.




                                                               
      ______________________________________________________________

                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 8 JULY, 2016 th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioner,

Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent

Nos.1 & 5, Shri Kiran Malokar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and

3 and Shri S.D. Khadi, Advocate for the respondent No.4.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the

Divisional Commissioner dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner

and upholding the appointment of the respondent No.4 as Anganwadi

Sevika. The challenges raised on behalf of the petitioner are

substantially on the ground that the allotment of marks by the

committee is not proper and though the petitioner is entitled for 5

marks as she possesses the Certificate of Teachers in Hand Craft and

3 wp2217.14

Work Experience, she is not given marks for it and is not given marks

properly under the head "Integrated Child Development Programme

Related Knowledge".

4. As far as the first submission of the petitioner is

concerned, the Divisional Commissioner has recorded that the

candidate is not entitled for 5 marks if he/she possesses the Certificate

of Teachers in Hand Craft and Work Experience. The petitioner has

not been able to point out that the conclusions of the Divisional

Commissioner are not correct and that the petitioner is entitled for 5

marks for possessing the above certificate.

5. To examine the legality of the second issue raised by the

petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader was asked to

produce the original record showing the allotment of marks by the

committee to the candidates. The record is produced and shown to the

learned Advocate for the petitioner also. The record shows that under

the head "Integrated Child Development Programme Related

Knowledge", the respondent No.4 is given 2 out of 4 marks and the

petitioner is given 1 out of 4 marks. The other two candidates Sau.

Swati Santosh Chauhan and Sau. Archana Shrikrushna Khandare are

4 wp2217.14

also given 1 out of 4 marks each under the above head. The marks

allotted by the committee to the candidates under the above head

cannot be faulted with. The difference between the marks of the

respondent No.4 and the petitioner is of 2.34 marks and it cannot be

said that the petitioner would have got selected even if 3 out of 4

marks were given to her under the above head.

6. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the

impugned order.

The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties

to bear their own costs.

Civil Application No.1332 of 2014.

In view of disposal of the petition, the application praying

for grant of time for filing translated copies of the documents has

become infructuous. It is disposed accordingly.

                                                                            JUDGE



    adgokar





                                                       5                                           wp2217.14




                                                                                               
                                                         CERTIFICATE




                                                                   

"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."

Uploaded by : P.M. Adgokar. Uploaded on : 16-07-2016.

P.A.