Bharatbai Nivrati Kankute vs The State Of Mah And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9301 Bom

                                         1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO.5911 OF 2008

Bharatbai w/o Nivrati Kankute,
Age-35 years, Occu-Household,
R/o Wassa, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani                    - PETITIONER 

VERSUS

1.        The State of Maharashtra,
          Child Welfare Department,
          Through G.P.

2.        The Chief Executive Officer,
          Zilla Parishad, Parbhani,

3.        Project Officer,
          Integrated Child Welfare Scheme,
          Jintur, Tq.Jintur, Dist.Parbhani,

4.        Rukhmini w/o Abasaheb Mutkule,
          Age-36 years, Occu-Household,
          R/o Wassa, Tq.Jintur,
          Dist.Parbhani                                  - RESPONDENTS 

Mr.S.G.Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.A.Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondent No.1.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.J.)

DATE : 05/12/2017

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the

appointment of respondent No.4 dated 21/08/2008 by which she has

khs/DEC. 2017/5911

been appointed as an "Anganwadi Helper" at Wassa, Tq.Jintur, Dist.

Parbhani.

2. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned

Advocate for the petitioner, the learned AGP on behalf of respondent

No.1 and the learned Advocate on behalf of respondent No.4 /

appointee. With their assistance, we have gone through the record

available.

3. There is no dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.4

had applied for appointment as an "Anganwadi Helper" with

reference to village Wassa, Tal.Jintur, Dist.Parbhani pursuant to the

proclamation. Grievance of the petitioner is that though she has not

been selected and respondent No.4 has been appointed, the

appointment order is rendered illegal and unsustainable for the

reason that respondent No.4 has submitted false information in the

application dated 25/04/2007 while seeking appointment as an

"Anganwadi Helper". It is specifically pointed out through the form

placed on record that respondent No.4 has mentioned her social

status as being a divorcee. She is not a divorcee, but is a deserted

wife. This false information has not been scrutinized properly by the

Appointing Authority and as such the impugned appointment order

khs/DEC. 2017/5911

is based on incorrect information.

4. The learned Advocate for respondent No.4 submits that she is

an illiterate person. She may not have understood the difference

between the 2 Marathi words used in the form which are " ifjrDR;k /

?kVLQksVhr". He submits that respondent No.4 has mentioned her

social status as "?kVLQksVhr" which means a divorcee. Her litigation

with regard to her marital discord and the likely breaking up of the

marital relations, was pending. She may not have understood the

meaning of "ifjrDR;k" which means a "deserted woman".

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates

for the respective sides. The impugned appointment order is dated

21/08/2008. More than 9 years have lapsed after the appointment

of respondent No.4. After notice was issued in this matter on

26/11/2008, this Court had heard the learned Advocates for the

respective sides on 28/06/2011 and had admitted the petition by

refusing interim relief to the petitioner. Respondent No.4 has,

therefore, continued in employment for almost a decade and has

settled in employment. The petitioner is about 45 years of age today

and is not eligible for seeking appointment in place of respondent

No.4 in the event of the appointment of the latter being set aside. We khs/DEC. 2017/5911

are, however, not considering this aspect as the primary ground for

dismissing this petition.

6. On perusing of the application form of respondent No.4, clause

(7) indicates 3 eventualities which in Marathi are stated as " fo/kok/

ifjrDR;k/?kVLQksVhr". The petitioner and respondent No.4 hail from a

tiny village. Respondent No.4 cannot be said to be a highly educated

person. She has taken primary education. We find that since the

litigation of respondent No.4 with regard to the break down of her

marriage was pending before the competent Court, she must have

mentioned her status as "?kVLQksVhr". A compromise between

respondent No.4 and her husband has taken place in Misc.

Appl.No.47/2005 wherein respondent No.4 had sought maintenance

as her husband had left her and had deserted her. By the

compromise, permanent maintenance of Rs.50,000/- was received by

respondent No.4 and further claim for maintenance was given up by

her. We find that it must have been in these peculiar facts that

respondent No.4 mentioned her status as "divorcee" instead of a

"deserted person".

7. We could have better appreciated the contentions of the

petitioner if there would have been no scope for entertaining an khs/DEC. 2017/5911

application of a lady for appointment as an "Anganwadi Helper", if the

condition of "deserted" was not mentioned. We could have then

concluded that the intention of respondent No.4 was to submit false

information.

8. We have also perused the proclamation dated 21/12/2006

issued by the Integrated Child Development Project Officer wherein

condition No.7 indicates that the applicant, if is a deserted person,

should submit an affidavit of the Taluka Magistrate. Keeping the

said condition in view and the fact that it is undisputed that

respondent No.4 is a deserted person, we do not find that an error

committed by respondent No.4 while filling up the form, could be

termed as being an intentional and deliberate act of submitting false

information. So also, she has now been working as an "Anganwadi

Helper" for almost a decade and she is about 46 years of age.

9. In the above backdrop and considering the breakdown of her

marriage, we do not find that this petition could be entertained. The

writ petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore, dismissed. Rule is

discharged.

( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/DEC. 2017/5911