Bombay High Court
Mamta Vitthalrao Wasnik And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 22 November, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
1
wp1215.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1215/2021
1. Smt. Mamta Vitthalrao Wasnik,
aged about 44 Yrs., Occu. Nil,
R/o Chandani Chowk, Yavatmal.
2. Smt. Anita Ambadas Dongre,
aged about 35 Yrs., Occu. Nil,
R/o Civil Line, Gandhi Chowk,
Yavatmal. ..Petitioners.
..Vs..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through it's Secretary, Department
of Health, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Z.P., Yavatmal.
3. District Health Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
4. Taluka Health Department,
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
5. Sangita Amol Gajbhiye,
aged adult, Occu. Service,
R/o Dalit Society, Patipura,
Yavatmal.
6. Alka Sayyed Mohamad Riyaz,
aged adult, Occu. Service,
R/o Nawab Pura, Near Haidari
Akhada, Yavatmal, District
Yavatmal. ..Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2021 05:40:35 :::
2
wp1215.2021.odt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Trupti Mahindrakar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.C. Bhalerao, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATED :- 22.11.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
2. Petitioners have questioned the legality and correctness of the
orders dated 24.12.2020 whereby respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been
selected and appointed as 'Ahsa Health Workers' in areas, Peshwe Plot
and Chandani Chowk, Yavatmal, respectively.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, such
appointments of respondent Nos.5 and 6 are illegal on two counts.
She submits that respondent No.5 was not an experienced candidate
and respondent No.6 was not resident of Chandani Chowk, Yavatmal.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has refuted these
contentions. He submits that experience was not the sole criterion on
wp1215.2021.odt
the basis of which the selection has been done. He points out from the
enquiry report, copy of which has been filed at page 384 of the
petition, that marks were to be allotted for educational qualification,
experience, presentation, knowledge about job of 'Asha Health
Workers', knowledge about vaccination, knowledge of area of work
and general knowledge and accordingly, marks have been allotted to
each of the candidates and in such evaluation, Sangita Amol Gajbhiye
(respondent No.5) was selected and appointed as Asha Health Worker
as petitioner No.2, Anita Ambadas Dongre had secured lessor marks
than Sangita Amol Gajbhiye. He also points out that while
respondent No.6, Alka Sayyed Mohamad Riyaz had produced
certificate showing her ordinary residence of Chandani Chowk from
one Corporator, petitioner No.1 Mamta Wasnik had produced two
certificates of residence from two different Corporators, one from
Pallavitai Ramteke and other from Chandrabhaga Madawi. Learned
counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 points out that these two certificates
were submitted by petitioner No.1 in a span of seven days and,
therefore, the candidature of petitioner No.1 was not found to be
suitable for such a job.
4. Considering the submissions made on behalf of respondent
Nos.2 to 4 and also the fact that these submissions are duly supported
wp1215.2021.odt
by documents on record, especially the enquiry report at page 384,
about which there is no dispute at least on facts, we are of the view
that there is no substance in the challenge raised by the petitioners to
the appointments of respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the post of 'Asha
Health Workers'.
5. While petitioner No.2 Anita Dongre and respondent No.5
Sangita Amol Gajbhiye both were found to be eligible for appointment
from Peshwe Plot area, the selection of respondent No.5 was made as
she had secured more marks than petitioner No.2. Respondent No.5
had secured 64 marks and petitioner No.2 had secured 56 marks
about which there is no dispute. Therefore, nothing wrong could be
found in appointment of respondent No.5 as 'Asha Health Worker'.
6. As regards petitioner No.1 and respondent No.6, both were the
candidates aspiring for their selection from Chandani Chowk area.
Respondent No.6 in the selection process had secured 54.5 marks
while petitioner No.1 had secured only 47 marks. The marks obtained
by respondent No.6 being more than the marks obtained by petitioner
No.1, no fault could be found in giving appointment to respondent
No.6 as 'Asha Health Worker'. So far as these facts are concerned,
there is no dispute. However, the dispute is about the two certificates
wp1215.2021.odt
of residence submitted by petitioner No.1. According to learned
counsel for petitioners, earlier petitioner No.1 was resident of Patipura
area but later on she changed her residence to Chandani Chowk area.
These facts, it appears have not been brought to the notice of selection
authority by petitioner No.1, but, the fact remains that on merits of
the process, respondent No.6 has been found to be a candidate who is
more meritorious than petitioner No.1.
7. In view of the above, we find that no case is made out for
making any interference with the selection process and appointments
of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
