Bombay High Court
Mrs. Yogita Vijay Madavi vs Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli ... on 16 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp3783.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3783 OF 2014
Mrs. Yogita Vijay Madavi,
Aged about 41 years, Occ.:
Anganwadi Madatnis, R/o.
Lakhamapur Bori, Tq. Chamorshi,
District : Gadchiroli.
ig .... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli,
through its Chief Executive Officer.
2. Child Development Project Officer
(Integrated Child Development
Project Scheme), Project Chamorshi,
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, District :
Gadchiroli.
3. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
4. Sau. Vishakha Ravi Wasekar,
Aged : Major,
R/o. Lakhamapur Bori, Tq.
Chamorshi, District : Gadchiroli.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Dr. Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri J.S. Mokadam, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Shri A.D. Sonak, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3.
None for respondent No.4.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JUNE 16, 2016.
Judgment 2 wp3783.14.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the petitioner and respondent Nos.
1 and 2 and learned A.G.P. for the respondent No.3. None appears for the
respondent No.4.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The respondent No.4 filed appeal before the Divisional
Commissioner challenging the decision of the respondent No.2, selecting the
petitioner as Anganwadi Madatnis (Helper). According to the respondent
No.4, the marks were not properly allotted by the selection committee and
she was not given marks for some 'head', for which she was entitled.
4. The Divisional Commissioner considered the relevant aspects
and by the impugned order upheld the challenge raised by the respondent
No.4, allowed the appeal filed by her and quashed the appointment order
issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order has
filed petition.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned order is bad in law as it is passed without hearing the petitioner. It
is further submitted that the calculations worked out by the Divisional
Judgment 3 wp3783.14.odt
Commissioner are not proper and not in accordance with the norms set by
the Government. The learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and
the learned A.G.P. have supported the impugned order.
6. With the assistance of the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, I have examined the documents placed on the record of
the petition. Tabular chart at page 45 of the paper book shows total marks
allotted to the respondent No.4 and the petitioner. Though the learned
advocate for the petitioner tried to point out that the deduction of marks as
made by the learned Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order is not
correct, it is not disputed that the marks shown in the tabular chart at page
45 of the paper book are required to be taken into consideration for the
purpose of deciding the merit of the candidates. The tabular chart shows
that the respondent No.4 got 70.08 marks and the petitioner got 73.08
marks. It was the grievance of the respondent No.4 before the Divisional
Commissioner that she is not granted 3 marks for the caste certificate
showing that she belongs to backward class. The Divisional Commissioner
has accepted the submission made on behalf of the respondent No.4. The
learned advocate for the petitioner argued that the respondent No.4 might
not have submitted the caste certificate along with the documents. However,
there is nothing on record which shows that the respondent No.1 had not
submitted the caste certificate at appropriate stage. The petitioner has not
disputed the fact that the respondent No.1 belongs to backward class. In
Judgment 4 wp3783.14.odt
these circumstances, the marks of the petitioner and the respondent No.4
would be 73.08 each.
The criteria which is relevant for determining the entitlement of
the candidate in such situation, is required to be seen. Clause 4 of the
Government Resolution dated 5th August, 2010 which provides for the terms
and conditions of the selection of Anganwadi Madatnis (Helper) provides
that if there are more than one candidate having same marks then the
candidate having better qualifications or who is senior in age or who is
having more experience, should be selected. The details of qualifications of
the petitioner and the respondent No.4 are available on record at page
No.42. The tabular chart shows that the respondent No.4 has studied up to
10th standard and the petitioner has studied up to 7 th Standard. The tabular
chart further shows that the respondent No.4 had secured more marks than
the petitioner in the examination of 7th Standard.
7. In view of above facts, in my view, the conclusions of the
learned Divisional Commissioner cannot be faulted with. As the dispute
regarding appointment on the post of Anganwadi Madatnis (Helper) is going
on since more than three years and as the petitioner complained that she is
not granted hearing before the impugned order is passed, with the assistance
of the learned advocates for the respective parties, I have examined the
factual aspects also and in view of this, the submission made on behalf of the
Judgment 5 wp3783.14.odt
petitioner that the impugned order is bad in law as it is passed without
hearing the petitioner is of no consequence.
8. In my view, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner
upholding the claim of the respondent No.4 is proper and does not require
interference.
The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to
bear their own costs.
CAW NO. 2150/2014.
In view of disposal of the main petition, the application for
dispensing with translation of Annexures 12, 13 and 15 does not survive,
hence, it is disposed of.
JUDGE
RRaut..
