Bombay High Court
Saroja Dadasaheb Gund vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8577 OF 2021
Saroja Dadasaheb Gund
Age : 37 years, Occu : Service,
R/o. Old Kazi Galli, Latur
Tq. & Dist. Latur .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Woman and Child Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Commissioner
Woman and Child Development, Pune
Tq. and Dist. Pune
3. The Child Development Project Officer (Class-I)
Trimurti Bhavan, Near Uday Petrol Pump,
Barshi Road, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur
4. Radhika Balkrushna Kulkarni
Age : 35 years, Occu : Service,
R/o. Hatte Nagar, Latur
Tq. & Dist. Latur .. Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane
AGP for Respondent / State : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. G.L. Deshpande
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 04-08-2022
ORAL JUDGMENT ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ) :
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned
AGP Mr. S.B. Yawalkar waives service for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Learned Advocate Mr. G.L. Deshpande waives service for respondent
no.4. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at
the stage of admission.
2. Though initially when the petition was filed the dispute
was only in respect of the inter se seniority, during pendency of the
petition respondent no.4 has even been granted promotion to the
post of Anganwadi Sevika.
3. The petitioner's grievance is about appointment of
respondent no.4 as Anganwadi Sevika in Anganwadi No.129 of ward
no.8 of Latur, in preference to her.
4. Learned advocate Mr. T.M. Venjane for the petitioner
submits that by virtue of the Government Resolution dated
13.08.2014, the seniority list of Anganwadi Madatnis qua each ward
has to be maintained in respect of the urban areas and the
senior-most Madatnis is entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi
Sevika if she possesses requisite qualification and has completed two
years of service.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that respondent no.4
was appointed as Madatnis on 23.02.2007 in Anganwadi No.85
which is from ward no.109, whereas the petitioner was appointed on
26.08.2011 in Anganwadi no.129 from ward no.8. Going by the date
of appointment, there cannot be any dispute that respondent no.4
was appointed as Anganwadi Madatnis prior to the petitioner.
6. The only dispute seems to be because of the fact that
respondent no.4 who was originally appointed as an Anganwadi
Madatnis in ward no.7 was transferred to the ward no.8 in the year
2015 whereas the petitioner has already been working in the same
ward since 2011. The petitioner seems to be harbouring an
impression that it is the station seniority which should count rather
than ward wise seniority.
7. True it is that respondent no.4 was transferred from a
different ward to ward no.8. However, there are no allegations that
her such transfer was on her own request. Rather the affidavit-in-
reply filed by respondents 1 to 3 along with the annexures
demonstrates that it was purely on the administrative ground that she
was transferred to ward no.8. There are also no allegations about
any mala fides in effecting such transfer.
8. In view of the above, when admittedly respondent no.4
is senior to the petitioner going by the date of initial appointment
coupled with the fact that she has been transferred to the ward no. 8
on administrative grounds, we find no illegality in the order
appointing Respondent no.4 as Anganwadi Sevika. Writ Petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
GGP
