Bombay High Court
Kanchan Arjun Pingale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 March, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 905.wp.596.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 596 OF 2017
Kanchan Arjun Pingale,
Age : 28 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Shirapur (Dhumal),
Tq.Shirur (k.), District Beed.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1 The State of Maharashtra.
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
3 The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed.
4 The Child Development Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme,
Shirur (K.), District Beed.
5 Aashabai Manohar Gavate,
Age : Major, Occupation : Household,
R/o Shirpur (Dhumal), Tq.Shirur (K.),
District Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Bhosale Mahesh S.
AGP for Respondents 1 and 2 : Shri S.P.Tiwari.
Advocate for Respondents 3 and 4 : Shri A.A.Shelke h/f Shri
P.D.Suraywanshi.
Advocate for Respondent 5 : Shri N.K.Tungar.
...
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 01:06:05 :::
*2* 905.wp.596.17
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 09th March, 2017
Oral Judgment :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the selection of Respondent
No.5 as an Anganwadi Sevika. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the
order delivered by Respondent No.2 dated 01.02.2016 thereby, rejecting
the Petitioner's appeal.
3 The Petitioner's contention is that the Government Resolution
dated 13.08.2014 has not been properly followed by the Respondents
while selecting Respondent No.5 for the position of Anganwadi Sevika.
4 There is no dispute that the Petitioner as well as Respondent
No.5 reside in the same village for which the proclamation was issued for
appointment of Anganwadi Sevika. There is also no dispute that both the
Petitioner and Respondent No.5 have acquired 75 marks and stand equal
in the order of merit list.
*3* 905.wp.596.17
5 The grievance of the Petitioner is that clause (3) of the
Government Resolution dated 13.08.2014 has not been properly
considered. It is contended that five marks granted to both the Petitioner
and Respondent No.5 are with reference to their educational
qualifications. Since both have acquired maximum five marks and are
equal at an aggregate of 75 marks, their age must be considered and since
the Petitioner is senior by one year to Respondent No.5, she should have
been appointed.
6 There is no dispute that the required qualification for
Anganwadi Sevika is 10th standard and for Madatnis it is 7 th standard. If
no candidate having SSC qualification is available, the qualification can be
relaxed to 9th standard for Anganwadi Sevika. The Petitioner is a Graduate
having acquired Bachelor of Arts (BA) certificate. Respondent No.5 has
also acquired Bachelor of Arts (BA) certificate and she has passed her
D.Ed. and B.Ed. at the time of her selection as Anganwadi Sevika.
7 The relevant portion of clause (3) of the Government
Resolution dated 13.08.2014 reads as under :-
"..... परंतु, उमेदवाराची िनवड िनिशचत करताना एकापेका
जासत उमेदवारांना सारखेच गुण पाप झालयास अशा
*4* 905.wp.596.17
पसंगी सवारत जासत शैकिणक अहर ता असलेलया
उमेदवाराची िनवड करावी. शैकिणक पातता सुदा समान
असलयास जासत वय (जनमिदनांक) असलेलया
उमेदवाराची िनवड करावी. सदर िनकष लागूनही
गुणवताकम समान येत असलयास िचटी टाकून िनवड
करावी......"
8 Considering the plain reading of the reproduced portion of
the Government Resolution as above, if the total marks acquired by more
than one candidate are same, one who has acquired more educational
qualification will have to be preferred. None of the litigating sides have
indicated any judicial pronouncement of this Court or of the Honourable
Supreme Court whereby the significance of additional qualification vis-a-
vis the job for which the application is made, has been considered in
relation to the appointment of an Anganwadi Sevika. One cannot read
more than what meets the eye.
9 It is plainly stated in the Government Resolution as
reproduced above that one who has more educational qualification, would
be preferred amongst those candidates who have scored equal marks. As
Respondent No.5 has acquired the qualifications of BA, D.Ed. and B.Ed. in
comparison to the Graduation Certificate of the Petitioner, the Authorities,
*5* 905.wp.596.17
in my view, have rightly selected Respondent No.5 for the post of
Anganwadi Sevika. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be termed as
being perverse or erroneous.
10 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition being devoid of
merit is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
