Bombay High Court
Anita Ramdhan Kendre vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 13 September, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 11631.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11631 OF 2016
Anita D/o Ramdhan Kendre,
Age : - 22 years, Occu:- Anganwadi
Madatnis,
R/o Pimparwada, Tq. Dharur,
Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary of Woman
and Child Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed.
3. The Child Development Project Officer
Ekatmik Bal Vikas Yojana,
Project Office, Dharur Rural, Dharur,
Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed. .. Respondents
Shri H. V. Tungar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri M. B. Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri S. S. Dambe, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
2 wp 11631.16
parties taken up for final hearing.
2. Mr. Tungar, the learned counsel for the petitioner states
that, pursuant to the advertisement and the selection process the
petitioner was appointed as a Anganwadi Madatnis under
appointment order dated 29.04.2016. The petitioner was directed
to join the duty at Anganwadi Pimparwada, Tq. Dharur. The
petitioner joined the post on 01.05.2016, however, the respondents
did not issue joining report to the petitioner. The petitioner
submitted application to the respondent No. 2 informing the
respondent No. 2 that though she joined on the post of
Anganwadi Madatnis on 01.05.2016, the persons named in the
application have asked the petitioner to return the appointment
order and that she would not get any salary.
3. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner has
discharged her duties regularly. However, the officers namely
Mr. Galphade, Mr. Karad and Mrs. Jamadar have threatened the
petitioner not to work on the post of Anganwadi Madatnis and as
such joining report is not given.
4. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner was
appointed after following due selection process. The petitioner
has also joined the post. No fault can be attributed to the
petitioner. The respondents be directed to issue joining report
3 wp 11631.16
and release the salary to the petitioner.
5. Mr. Dambe, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and
3 submits that, as per the policy, unless and until there are two
or more eligible candidates available for participation in the
selection process, the appointment order could not have been
issued and fresh advertisement has to be issued. The petitioner
was the only eligible candidate, as such it was decided to issue
fresh advertisement. Even fresh advertisement was issued on
03.06.2016. Pursuant to the said advertisement also nobody had
applied. Even the petitioner did not apply, as such it will be
necessary to go for fresh advertisement.
6. The affidavit in reply appears to have been filed on behalf
of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by one Mr. Galphade, working as
incharge Child Development Project Officer, Wadwani. It is
stated that, the appointment order was issued to the petitioner
by the respondent No. 3 directing her to join the duties. The
petitioner was required to join the duties on or before 01.05.2016
along with original documents. The petitioner failed to join the
duties on or before 01.05.2016, as such does not have right to
claim appointment. The petitioner submitted application for the
first time on 25.05.2016 making false allegations. The
allegations made by the petitioner are denied. Even fresh
proclamation was issued, but two candidates applied were not
4 wp 11631.16
qualified.
7. We have also heard the learned Assistant Government
Pleader.
8. It appears that, the petitioner was issued with the
appointment order dated 29.04.2016. The dispute is about the
joining of the petitioner at her place of appointment. There are
rival contentions in this regard. The petitioner states that, the
petitioner had signed the register on 01.05.2016. The record
certainly has to be with the office. It appears that, the letters
are issued by the petitioner from time to time asking the
respondents to allow the petitioner to join the duties.
9. The fact remains that, the petitioner has been issued with
the appointment order. There was no reason for the petitioner
not to join. The petitioner has given many letters requesting that
she be allowed to work on the said post, and thereafter petition is
filed on 15.11.2016.
10. The communication issued by the Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed to Mr. Dambe, the learned counsel is placed
on record. The said communication is contrary to what is
pleaded in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent
Nos. 2 and 3. The said communication states that, as there was
5 wp 11631.16
only one application of a qualified candidate, as per policy
appointment could not be made and the said post was required to
be re-advertised and because of that re-advertisement was
issued. The affidavit filed on record and the said communication
of the Chief Executive Officer to the learned advocate do not go
hand in hand.
11. The petitioner is already issued with appointment order.
The respondents shall allow the petitioner to join the duties and
shall pay regular salary to the petitioner. As far as past salary is
concerned that is from 01.05.2016 till date the Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed shall verify the record, such as
register on which the petitioner states that she has put her
signature and may make such other enquiry and arrive at a
conclusion as to whether the petitioner has worked during the
said period. If the petitioner has worked during the said period,
then the salary shall be paid to the petitioner of the said period
also. The writ petition accordingly is partly allowed.
Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/Sept. 17
