Bombay High Court
Harsha Amol Sonone vs Divisional Commissioner, ... on 22 February, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 941wp1560.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1560 OF 2021
Harsha Amol Sonone__ Vs. ___Divisonal Commissioner and ors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N.A.Gawande, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. M.A.Barabde, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 3
Mr. S.A.Mohta, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. Dahake, Advocate for Respondent NO.4
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 22/02/2023
1] Heard Mr. Gawande, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for
Respondent no.2. Learned AGP for Respondent nos.
1 to 3 and Mr. Dahake, learned counsel for
respondent no.4.
2] The petition challenges the order dated
2.1.2020, which rejects the appeal filed by the
petitioner against the order dated 23.6.2017 passed
by the Chief Executive Officer, holding that the
Respondent no.4 is entitled to be appointed as
Anganwadi Helper (Madatnis) as against the
petitioner.
3] Mr. Gawande, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that having regard to the
requirement of the Government Resolution dated
(2) 941wp1560.21
13.08.2014 (pg.17) and specifically clause (3)
(pg.21), since the petitioner has higher educational
qualification having passed 12th standard, as against
the respondent no.4, who has passed 10 th standard,
it was the petitioner who ought to have been given
the preference on account of the fact that both have
secured the same number of marks. He therefore
submits that merely because there was delay in
submitting the 12th standard mark-sheet, that cannot
deprive the petitioner of her right and entitlement to
get appointed.
4] Mr. Dahake, learned counsel for
respondent no.4 supports the impugned orders and
submits that there was an obligation on the part of
the petitioner to submit the 12th standard mark-sheet
along with her application for employment and the
said requirement cannot be cured subsequent in
point of time. The impugned orders are supported
by Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for respondent No.2
and learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 3.
5] The GR dated 13.08.2014 prescribes the
procedure for selection of candidate for the post of
anganwadi madatnis. Clause (3) of the said GR
indicates that in case two candidates receive the
same number of marks, then the candidate having
(3) 941wp1560.21
the higher qualification shall be entitled to be
selected. In case the educational qualifications are
also same, then the person who was born earlier
would be selected. This would categorically indicate
that the application to be submitted for
appointment, necessarily has to be accompanied by
all the qualifications which a candidate possesses for,
on failure of such qualification being annexed, the
Committee would not be in a position to determine
the eligibility in the contingency contemplated by
clause (3) of the aforesaid GR. In fact there is a
clarification to the GR dated 13.8.2014 (pg.70)
which vide clause (5) necessarily requires the
highest qualification to be annexed with the
application.
6] In the instant case, the petitioner and the
respondent no.4 had both applied for the post of
Anganwadi Madatnis, in which both of them have
secured the same number of marks i.e. 70.2. Both
the persons had stated in the application that they
are 10th standard passed, documents ascertaining
which were placed on record. The petitioner was
selected, to which the respondent no.4 objected, as a
result of which by the order dated 23.6.2017 passed
by the CEO, the appointment of the petitioner was
(4) 941wp1560.21
cancelled and the respondent No.4 was appointed
(pg. 15). Appeal thereagainst has been rejected by
the Divisional Commissioner by his judgment dated
2.1.2020 (pg.41). The purpose of submitting the
educational qualification of the candidate along with
the application cannot be over stated, as that is some
thing which is required by virtue of clause (3) of the
G.R. dated 13.8.2014 and its clarification, so that
the requirement of the said clause can be worked
out. While considering this position, in Priyatama
Sakharam Wakle vrs. Divisional Commissioner,
2016(4) Mh.L.J. 455, it has been specifically held
that the requirement of annexing the relevant
document along with the application had a
significance, which could not be ignored.
7] That being the position, since the
relevant document, which indicated that the
petitioner had passed 12th standard was not annexed
with the application as per the requirement of the
GR dated 13.8.2014, I do not see any reason to
interfere in the impugned order. The petition is
therefore dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:23.02.2023 19:07
