Bombay High Court
Smt Surekha Arvind Bhandare @ ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 18 March, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
WP.1742-2010.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1742 OF 2010
Smt. Surekha w/o. Arvind Bhandare
@ Kerabai d/o. Madhukar Khandade ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
3. The Zilla Parishad, Latur
Through its Chief Executive Officer
4. The Selection Committee for
Anganwadi Sevika and Helper
at Anandwadi, Post. Chapoli,
Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur
5. Suchita d/o. Chandrakant Malwade
@ Suchita w/o. Ramkishan Shelke ..Respondents
----
Mr.S.A.Wakure, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.S.P.Tiwari, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
Mr.A.V.Hon, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4
Mr.S.N.Patil, Advocate for respondent no.5
----
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 04, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 18, 2021
ORDER :-
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 WP.1742-2010
2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the
following main reliefs:-
D. That by making rule absolute, the
judgment and order passed by respondent
no.2 dated 22.09.2009 No.2008/DB/Desk-
2/ZPVP/ CR-64, confirming the
selection/appointment order passed by
respondent no.3 and 4 in favour of
respondent no.5 for the post of Anganwadi
Karyakarti of Anandwadi, Tq. Chakur, Dist.
Latur, may kindly be quashed and set aside
and it may be held that respondent no.5 is
not entitled for the post of Anganwadi
Karyakarti of Anandwadi, Tq. Chakur, Dist.
Latur.
E. By issuing writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or directions
the respondents No.3 and 4 may kindly be
directed to take steps to appoint the
petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarti i.e.
Kindergarten Worker of Anandwadi,
Tq.Chakur, Dist.Latur.
3. Respondent no.4 issued a proclamation-cum-
advertisement dated 20.06.2008 for filling up one post each of
Anganwadi Karyakarti and Anganwadi Madatnis for village
Anandwadi, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. Both the petitioner and
respondent no.5 made applications for appointment to the post
of Ananganwadi Karyakarti. The candidates were to be
3 WP.1742-2010
subjected to a test carrying 100 marks. The details thereof
had been given in the proclamation/advertisement. The
documents relating to the educational qualification, caste,
widowhood, etc. were required to be submitted along with the
application. It was specifically mentioned in the
proclamation/advertisement that no document would be
received after 05.07.2008.
4. The selection committee conducted interviews/
viva-voce of the candidates on 25.11.2008. Out of 100 marks.
30 marks were reserved for interview. In all, nine candidates
were to be interviewed. The petitioner secured 52.17 marks
out of 100, while respondent no.5 secured 58.83 marks.
Respondent no.5 has, therefore, been given appointment.
5. The petitioner preferred a representation-cum-
appeal under Section 267-A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad
and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1967, to the Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad. She has, however, been
unsuccessful therein. Hence, present Writ Petition.
4 WP.1742-2010
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
out of 70 marks reserved for educational qualification, caste
claim and other criteria, both the petitioner and respondent
no.5 are shown to have secured 35 marks each. According to
learned counsel, respondent no.5 had not submitted her caste
certificate. Out of 70 marks, 10 marks were reserved for caste
claim. The petitioner had submitted her caste certificate
indicating to have belonged to Other Backward Class (O.B.C.).
Inspite of there having been a stipulation in the
proclamation/advertisement that no certificate would be
received post 05.07.2008, the authorities concerned, only with
a view to favour respondent no.5, permitted her to submit her
caste certificate thereafter. On subtracting 10 marks of
respondent no.5 towards her caste claim, from her total marks
i.e. 58.83, her total marks would come to 48.83, necessarily
less than the marks secured by the petitioner. The petitioner,
therefore, ought to have been given an appointment for the
post.
5 WP.1742-2010
Learned counsel would further submit that the
petitioner had not been served with any communication
requiring to submit her caste certificate issued by competent
authority within the extended time.
In short, the petitioner claims to have been
meritorious candidate but only with a view to defeat her claim
for the post, the authorities concerned arbitrarily granted
respondent no.5 extension of time to submit her caste
certificate and on accepting the same, she was granted 10
marks, showing her to have secured highest marks. Learned
counsel for the petitioner would, therefore, urge for allowing
the Writ Petition in terms of prayer clauses (D) and (E).
7. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of
respondent no.5, stating therein that the petitioner had
produced caste certificate issued by the Gramsevak. The
Gramsevak is not a competent authority to issue caste
certificate. The petitioner was, therefore, not eligible to secure
the marks under the said category. In the
6 WP.1742-2010
proclamation/advertisement, it was made clear that the
candidates should produce caste certificate issued by the
competent authority. Respondent no.5 had also filed caste
certificate issued by the Gramsevak. The Zilla Parishad,
however, extended the time for submission of the caste
certificate issued by the competent authority. All the
candidates were communicated said decision and were required
to submit caste certificate on or before 05.11.2008.
Respondent no.5 submitted the caste certificate issued by the
Tahsildar - competent authority. The petitioner, however, could
not submit her caste certificate within the extended time
frame. She, therefore, could not be selected.
8. The petitioner secured 52.17 marks as against 58.83
marks secured by respondent no.5. Both the petitioner and
respondent no.5 belong to O.B.C. category. Ten marks were
reserved for caste claim. If both of them had submitted
respective caste certificate issued by the competent authority,
both of them could have been granted 10 marks each. The
petitioner and respondent no.5 had initially submitted their
7 WP.1742-2010
caste certificate issued by the Gramsevak. The Gramsevak is
not a competent authority to issue case certificate. The Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad - respondent no.1 took a
decision to extend the time for submitting caste certificate.
The time was extended upto 05.11.2008. There are no
averments in the petition that the petitioner had not been
issued a communication informing her about extension of time
to submit caste certificate. It is only during the arguments,
learned counsel for the petitioner came with such a stand. It
appears that the same argument had also not been advanced
before the Divisional Commissioner.
9. The candidates were required to submit their caste
certificate issued by either Tahsildar or Sub Divisional Officer.
It is respondent no.5, who could submit her caste certificate
within the extended time. The petitioner, however, could not
submit her caste certificate, issued by the competent authority,
on or before the extended date. The petitioner could secure
her caste certificate issued by the District Resettlement Officer,
Latur, on 05.01.2009 i.e. beyond the extended period for
8 WP.1742-2010
submission of the caste certificate. Since respondent no.5
could submit her caste certificate within the extended time
frame, she has been given 10 marks for her caste claim. Total
marks secured by her are, thus, more than the marks secured
by the petitioner. Respondent no.5, accordingly, came to be
selected for the post and given the appointment. She is
serving on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti since 2009 till
date. As such, the petitioner could not make out her case, as
has been averred in the petition. The petitioner is, therefore,
not entitled for the reliefs claimed.
10. The Writ Petition, thus, fails and the same is,
therefore, dismissed.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
