Bombay High Court
Sau. Rupali Ashok Khade vs Divisional Commissioner, ... on 28 January, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
Judgment
wp2656.17 15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2656 OF 2017
Sau.Rupali Ashok Khade,
Aged 27 years, occupation household,
R/o Jogaldari, taluka Mangrulpir,
District Washim. ..... Petitioner.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Washim.
3. Project Officer Integrated Child
Development Scheme,
Taluka Mangrulpir, district Washim.
4. Sau. Manju Ajay Chavan,
Aged 23 years, occupation household,
R/o Jogaldari, taluka Mangrulpir,
District Washim. ..... Respondents.
===================================
Shri A.B.Band, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri I.J.Damle, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 3.
Shri Shrikant Saoji, Counsel for respondent No.2.
None for respondent No.4.
===================================
CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 28, 2021
.....2/-
Judgment
wp2656.17 15
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel Shri A.B.Band for the
petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri I.J.Damle for
respondent Nos.1 and 3, and learned counsel Shri Shrikant Saoji
for respondent No.2. Learned counsel Shri P.S.Patil for respondent
No.4 is absent. Yesterday, when his another matter was called out,
it was informed that his son is hospitalized and, therefore, he was
absent. After hearing learned counsel for parties, this Court is of
view that even in absence of learned counsel Shri P.S.Patil for
respondent No.4 the matter can proceed further and, therefore, his
absence is excused.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel for parties.
3. On 11.8.2016, respondent No.3 issued a proclamation
for appointment of "Anganwadi Sevika" in respect of village
Jogaldari, taluka Mangrulpir, district Washim. The petitioner and
respondent No.4, in pursuance to the said proclamation, submitted
.....3/-
Judgment
wp2656.17 15
their candidatures to get themselves for appointment of
"Anganwadi Sevika".
4. Learned counsel Shri Shrikant Saoji for respondent
No.2 so also learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri I.J.Damble
for respondent Nos.1 and 3, do not dispute before this Court that
the petitioner was placed at serial No.1 in the selection list and
respondent No.4 was placed at serial No.2. Respondent No.3
passed order on 7.10.2016 giving appointment to respondent
No.4.
5. The appointment of respondent No.4 was questioned
by the petitioner by filing proceedings before the Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim challenging order giving
appointment to respondent No.4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Washim, vide order dated 25.11.2016, cancelled the
appointment order given in favour of respondent No.4 and at the
same time he constituted committee for verifying as to whether the
petitioner or respondent No.4 know local "Banjara" language.
.....4/-
Judgment
wp2656.17 15
6. Feeling aggrieved by cancellation of the appointment
order, respondent No.4 approached to respondent No.1 by filing an
appeal and vide order dated 14.3.2017 the appeal filed on behalf
of respondent No.4 was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati. Against that, the present writ
petition is filed.
7. It would be useful to reproduce herein below clause
No.9 of the proclamation dated 11.8.2016:
"Hkk"ksps Kku % vax.kokMh e/;s 50% is{kk tkLr eqys ejkBh
Hkk"ksO;frfjDr brj Hkk"kk ¼mnk- mnqZ] fganh] catkjk½ Hkk"kk
cksy.kkjs vlrhy rj rsFkhy ins gh mnqZ] fganh] catkjk
cksyrk fygrk ;s.kk&;k efgyk mesnokjke/kwup
Hkj.;kr ;srhy-"
By the said proclamation, it was made known to
everybody who wishes to submit candidature for the post of
"Anganwadi Sevika" that if pupil in the concerned "Anganwadi"
strength is more than 50% having local language, then the said
post will be filled from candidates who are having knowledge of
local language.
.....5/-
Judgment
wp2656.17 15
8. Undisputedly, respondent No.4 belongs to "Banjara"
and the petitioner does not belong to "Banjara". It is also not in
dispute before this Court that at Jogaldari Anganwadi centre 79%
of population speak only "Banjara" language. Similarly, it is the
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that though the
petitioner is not hailing from "Banjara", she knows Banjara
language. Admittedly, no document was filed on record by the
petitioner before Authorities below to show that though the
petitioner does not belong to Banjara, she is having proficiency in
language. Therefore, merely because the petitioner was at serial
No.1, in my view, respondent No.3 was right in giving order of
appointment to respondent No.4 because of fact that she knows
"Banjara" language and she is at serial No.2. It is not the case of
the petitioner that candidates knowing some other language who
are also having knowledge of "Banjara" language and though they
are higher in merit, their claim is denied.
9. In this view of the matter, the Chief Executive Officer
exceeded his jurisdiction in appointing committee especially when
.....6/-
Judgment
wp2656.17 15
nothing was brought before him to show that the petitioner knows
"Banjara" language. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati
Division, Amravati has rightly considered this aspect and allowed
the appeal filed on behalf of respondent No.4.
10. In totality of the circumstances as discussed above and
especially in the light of clause No.9 of the proclamation, in my
view, this writ petition is devoid of any substance. Hence, the writ
petition is dismissed.
The writ petition stands disposed of. Rule is
discharged. No costs.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
