Bombay High Court
Chandrakala Kondibarao Bhise ... vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 15 January, 2018
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP - 10382-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10382 OF 2012
Ms. Chandrakala D/o. Kondibarao Bhise,
alias Mrs. Chandrakala W/o. Bhivaji Gaikwad,
Age 33 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Bhilaj,
Post Bhogavdevi, Taluka Jintur,
District Parbhani .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Women and Child Development
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Child Development Officer,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Integrated Child Development
Services Project, Jintur,
District Parbhani
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani
4. Ms. Manda D/o. Shankar Hake,
alias Mrs. Manda D/o. Kashinath
Hulgunde, Age 30 years,
Occu. Service as Anganwadi Karyakarti,
R/o. Bhillaj, Taluka Jintur,
District Parbhani
5. Mr. Vasantrao S/o. Pundlikrao Shinde,
Age 52 years, Occu. Agriculture and
Politician, R/o. Gavali Galli, Jintur,
Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2018 02:00:23 :::
2 WP - 10382-2012
...
Mr. Ajinkya Kale, Advocate h/f Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for
petitioner
Mrs. V.S. Choudhari, AGP for respondent-State
Mr. S.R. Yadav, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3
None present for respondents no.4 and 5 though served
...
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
P. R. BORA, JJ.
DATE : 15-01-2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard learned counsel for parties by consent, finally.
3. Petitioner challenges order dated 23-07-2012
whereunder, appointment given to petitioner as Anganwadi
Karyakarti in selection for said post, had been found to be not proper
and accordingly had been communicated under the same about
discontinuation of her services.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Ajinkya Kale submits
that petitioner had been selected by following due procedure as
prescribed and had been appointed under order dated 06-07-2012
and her services purportedly immediately had been dis-continued by
passing order dated 23-07-2012. He contends that the
3 WP - 10382-2012
dis-continuation order had been passed without granting any hearing
to petitioner and, as such, is bad in law being in breach of principles
of natural justice.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Yadav appearing for Zilla Parishad,
however, points out that issuance of appointment order to petitioner
had been under a mistake. In the order of merit, petitioner had
been in-fact, third in serial, whereas respondent no.4 had been
second in the same on the basis of marks obtained in the selection
process. While the first candidate in order of merit, namely, Karuna
Babarao Nirasgandh, although had been selected, had not been
issued appointment order since she was not fulfilling the criterion of
selection about being resident of Bhilaj. As such, candidate second
in order of merit ought to have been given appointment order but
due to inadvertence, it was issued to petitioner. Subsequently, upon
realizing that petitioner was next to respondent no.4 and
appointment order to petitioner had been erroneously issued, the
same had been recalled.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Kale is not in a position
to dispute this position as appearing in the selection process
although purports to contend that the marks awarded in oral
interview have been too high to respondent no. 4. Although this had
been so submitted, it does not appear that such a contention had
4 WP - 10382-2012
ever been raised and/or appointment of respondent no. 4 had been
objected to on that count at any point of time before.
7. In absence of dispute and/or challenge to veracity about
order of merit in selection process, we do not think that the petition
carries any case to persuade us to exercise powers in favour of
petitioner.
8. Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
9. Rule stands discharged.
[P. R. BORA] [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
