Bombay High Court
Yamuna Namdeo Hapse vs The Chief Executive Officer Zp & ... on 12 July, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp904.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 904 OF 2005
Yamuna d/o Namdeo Hapse,
aged about 30 years,
occupation - Anganwadi Sevika,
r/o Rajapur Takli, Tahsil -
Umarkhed, District - Yavatmal. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal,
District - Yavatmal.
2. The Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development
Scheme, Umarkhed,
District - Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Tajne, Advocate for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
JULY 12, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Narwade, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Tajne, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The challenge is to the order of termination dated
wp904.05
21.02.2005 on the ground that erroneously and under the
impression that the petitioner is not a resident of Mouza -
Rajapur (Takli), but is a resident of Tahsil place Umarkhed
proper, the same came to be issued.
3. It is not in dispute that she came to be selected after
proper selection process as Anganwadi Sevika at Anganwadi
Rajapur Wadi (Takli) and thereafter from 19.08.2004,
continued to work till her termination. She was served with a
notice dated 24.07.2004 alleging that she relied upon the
documents of her father to demonstrate that she was local
resident i.e. resident of Rajapur, to claim the employment,
while she was actually residing at Umarkhed. It is also pointed
out that daily she was commuting from Umarkhed.
4. Shri Narwade, learned counsel submits that after
receipt of show cause notice, reply to it was given and with it
circumstances in which even after marriage she was required to
stay with her father at Rajapur (Takli) were pointed out. He
submits that though there is Voters Identity Card issued by the
wp904.05
Election Commission of India and Ration card is obtained from
Umarkhed, that by itself does not mean that she is a resident of
Umarkhed. Several documents and certificates were produced
on record by the petitioner to substantiate her stay at Rajapur
but the same have been ignored. He invites attention to the
statement contained in paragraph 5 of the submissions on
affidavit filed before this Court by Respondent No. 1 and
submits that records of Zilla Parishad need to be looked into.
5. Shri Tajne, learned counsel, on the other hand,
submits the fact that the petitioner was daily commuting from
Umarkhed, has not been disputed by her in reply to show cause
notice. He adds that though the petitioner got married in 1993
and her husband was / is staying at Umarkhed, she did not
provide any documents of family of her husband to show that
she was not residing at Umarkhed. On the other hand, it is
apparent that she continued to rely upon documents on her
maternal side to demonstrate that she was residing at Rajapur.
Lastly, he submits that after termination of the petitioner, a
fresh selection process was conducted and proper competent
wp904.05
candidate has been appointed in the year 2005 itself and that
candidate has not been joined as a party respondent.
6. The condition that Anganwadi Sevika must be a
resident of Rajapur (Takli) is not in dispute. The petitioner,
therefore, relied upon ration card of family of her father and
certain other documents to substantiate that when show cause
notice was served upon her, she replied to it on 30.12.2004. In
that reply, she submitted that Voters ID issued by the Election
Commission of India or then ration card cannot be used as a
substantive piece of evidence to determine her residence.
Thereafter, she has explained that her father was required to
obtain certificate of residence at Umarkhed to facilitate
education of his daughters and for other government work.
Voters ID was obtained in 1994 and ration card is of the year
1999-2000, however, that ration card was not used after the
year 2002. Her father retired from Umarkhed and started
residing at native place i.e. Rajapur (Takli). She has added that
as she did not have any brother, she and her husband were
residing at Rajapur (Takli). These developments after
wp904.05
retirement of her father are not relevant in the present matter.
7. The petitioner got married in the year 1993-94 and
thereafter there is a Voters ID issued in the year 1994 which
shows that she was not residing at Rajapur (Takli). Similarly,
from the records available with Shri Tajne, learned counsel for
the respondents, he points out that in the ration card of father,
name of the petitioner or her husband does not figure.
8. In this situation, considering the fact that later on
there was a fresh advertisement and fresh selection process and
the post is now not vacant, at this stage we are not inclined to
interfere in extra ordinary jurisdiction. We do not find any
jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned action. Writ
Petition is accordingly dismissed and rule is discharged.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
wp904.05
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment/ Order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment/ Order."
Uploaded by : G. Shamdasani Uploaded on : 15.07.2016.
