Dismissed

Parwatabai Shankar Pamalwad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Aug 2011WP/275/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a group of writ petitions challenging a Government Resolution that changed eligibility criteria for Anganwadi Sevika appointments, ruling that the change was a valid administrative act and alternative industrial dispute remedies were inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed with no order as to costs; Rule stands discharged.

Parwatabai Shankar Pamalwad Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 275 OF 2011

¶4

Sau. Parwatabai w/o Shankar Pamalwad,
Age : 43 years, Occu.: Madatnis/Service,
R/o Mendka, Tq. Mudkhed, Dist. Nanded PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra,
 through its Secretary,
 Village Development & Water
 Conservation Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai -32

¶7

 (Copy to be served on G.P.
 High Court of Judicature of
 Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)

¶8

2. Commissioner,
 Ekatmik Bal Vikas Seva Yojana,
 Raigad Bhavan, New Mumbai

¶9

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, District Nanded

¶10

4. Balvikas Prakalpa Adhikari, Ekatmik Balvikas Seva Yojna, Project Office, at Mudkhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded RESPONDENTS

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 2896 OF 2011

¶13

Vandana D/o Hasaji Khillare,
Age : 35 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Chuncha, Tq. Kalamnuri,
Dist. Hingoli PETITIONER

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary,

¶16

JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶17

 Women and Child Development Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
 Zilla Parishad, Hingoli,
 Tq. and Dist. Hingoli
3. The Project Officer,
 Integrity Child Development
 Service Scheme, Plot B-II (Rural)
 Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri,
 Dist. Hingoli RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 727 OF 2011
1. Sow. Vimal Krushnanath Kamble
 Age: 35 years, Occu.: Household,
 R/o Pimpri Awghad, Tq. Rahuri,
 District Ahmednagar
2. Sow. Surekha Rajendra Tribuvan,
 Age : 35 years, Occu.: Household,
 R/o Pimpri Awghad, Tq. Rahuri,
 District Ahmednagar PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The Secretary,
 Women and Child Development
 Department, Government of
 Maharashtra, Mantralaya,
 Mumbai
2. The Child Development Project
 Officer, Integrated Child
 Development Service Scheme
 Tq. Rahuri District Ahmednagar
 (Copy of Respondent no.1 to be
 served on G.P. High Court of
 Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) RESPONDENTS

¶18

JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶19

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2478 OF 2011

¶20

Nanda D/o Nana Parkhe,
Age : 34 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Wahegaon, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist: Aurangabad

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

1. The State of Maharashtra
 through Collector, Aurangabad
 (Copy to be served on Govt.
 Pleader, High Court at Aurangabad)

¶23

2. Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad
 through its Chief Executive Officer
3. Balvikas Prakalp Adhikari,
 Ekatmik Balvikas Seva Yojna,
 Tq. Gangapur, Dist.: Aurangabad RESPONDENTS

¶24

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1605 OF 2011

¶25

1. Kanta w/o Govindrao Kale,
 Age : 42 years, Occu.: Service,
 R/o Kadrabad Dargah Road,
 Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna
2. Sharda w/o Nivrutti Malode,
 Age : 27 years, Occu.: Service,
 R/o. Kadrabad, Utar Galli,
 Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna
3. Rukmin w/o Ramdas Lahane,
 Age : 29 years, Occu.: Service,
 R/o. Sidharth Nagar, Police Quarter,
 Infront of Suruchi Dhaba,
 Jalna, Dist. Jalna
4. Sunanda w/o Khanduji Kharat,
 Age : 28 years, Occu.: Service,
 R/o. Malipura, Shinde Wada,
 Jalna, Dist. Jalna PETITIONERS

¶26

JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶27

VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
 Through the Secretary,
 Rural Development Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Collector, Jalna,
 Dist. Jalna
 (Copy of respondent no.1
 and 2 to be served on
 G.P. High Court Bench at
 Aurangabad)

¶28

3. The Chief Executive Officer,
 Zilla Parishad, Jalna

¶29

4. The Child Development Project
 Officer, Integrated Child Development
 Service Scheme, Bhokardan,
 Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna

¶30

5. The Chief Officer,
 Municipal Council, Jalna
 Dist. Jalna RESPONDENTS

¶31

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3802 OF 2011

¶32

Sangita D/o Bhojappa Wanare,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Shirur Kasar, Tq. Shirur Kasar,
Dist. Beed PETITIONER

¶33

VERSUS

¶34

1. The State of Maharashtra
 Through its Secretary,
 Department of Women and Child
 Development, Mantralaya,
 Mumbai - 32.
 (Copy to be served on G.P.
 High Court of Bombay, Bench
 at Aurangabad)

¶35

JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶36

2. The Child Development Project

¶37

 Officer, Integrated Child Development
 Service Scheme, Shirur Kasar,

¶38

 Taluka Shirur Kasar,

¶39

 Dist. Beed RESPONDENTS

¶40

WITH

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO. 1973 OF 2011

¶42

Samindra Vikram Choure,

¶43

Age : 22 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Dandegaon, Tq. Kalamnoori,
District Hingoli PETITIONER

¶44

 VERSUS

¶45

1. The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Secretary,
 Woman and Child Development Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶46

2. The Zilla Parishad Hingoli,

¶47

 Through its Chief Executive Officer

¶48

3. The Project Officer,

¶49

 Integrity Child Development and

¶50

 Service Scheme, Akhada-Balapur,

¶51

 Tq. Kalamnoori, District-Hingoli RESPONDENTS

¶52

WITH

¶53

WRIT PETITION NO. 400 OF 2011

¶54

Vaishali Bhujang Bade

¶55

@ Vaishali Lahu Jaibhay,
Age : 22 years, Occu.: Household,
& Anganwadi Madatnis,
R/o : Jaibhaywadi, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahmednagar PETITIONER

¶56

 VERSUS

¶57

1. TheState of Maharashtra,
 Through its Secretary,
 Social Welfare Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶58

JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶59

 (Copy to be served on G.P.
 High Court of Bombay,
 Bench at Aurangabad)

¶60

2. Member Secretary & Child
 Development Project Officer,
 Integrated Child Development Service
 Scheme, Project Jamkhed,
 Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶61

3. The President,
 Anganwadi Sevika/Madatnis/
 Mini Anganwadi Sevika Selection
 Committee, Tq. Jamkhed,
 Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS

¶62

WITH

¶63

WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2011

¶64

Bharti D/o Ramesh Bagul,
Age : 20 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o Moharda, Post Bramhani,
Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad PETITIONER

¶65

 VERSUS

¶66

1. The State of Maharashtra
 Through its Secretary,
 Department of Women & Child
 Development, Mantralaya,
 Mumbai-32.

¶67

 (Copy to be served on Govt.
 Pleader, High Court of Bombay,
 Bench at Aurangabad)

¶68

2. The Child Development Project
 Officer, Integrated Child
 Development Service Scheme,
 Kannad, Taluka Kannad,
 District Aurangabad RESPONDENTS

¶69

JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶70

WITH

¶71

WRIT PETITION NO. 3884 OF 2011

¶72

Kavita d/o Baburao Rathod alias
Kavita w/o Ujjwal Jadhav,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
Post Graduate, R/o. Jahagirdarwadi,
Taluka and District Osmanabad PETITIONER

¶73

 VERSUS

¶74

1. The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Secretary,
 Women and Child Development
 Department, Maharashtra State,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶75

 Copy to be served on Govt.
 Pleader, High Court of Bombay,
 Bench at Aurangabad

¶76

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad

¶77

3. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Ter Project, District Osmanabad

¶78

4. Anita Subhash Kolpe,
 Age : 29 years,
 R/o Jahagirdarwadi,
 Taluka and District Osmanabad RESPONDENTS

¶79

WITH

¶80

WRIT PETITION NO. 5442 OF 2011

¶81

Narsabai D/o Ram Junkatwad,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Degaon, Tq. Mukhed,
District Nanded PETITIONER

¶82

VERSUS

¶83

1. The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Secretary,
 Woman and Child Development
 Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶84

(8) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶85

 (Copy to be served on the Government
 Pleader, High Court of Bombay,
 Bench at Aurangabad)

¶86

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded

¶87

3. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded

¶88

4. Surekha W/o Narayan Ainile, Age : 27 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Degaon, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded RESPONDENTS

¶89

.....

¶90

Advocate/s for the Petitioner/s

¶91

Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate (WP 275.2011)
Mr. J.M. Murkute, Advocate (WP 2896.2011)
Mr. Kishor N. Lokhande, Advocate (WP 727.2011)
Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate (WP 2478.2011)
Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate (WP 1605.2011)
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate (WP 3802.2011)
Mr. Anand V. Indrale Patil, Advocate (WP 1973.2011)
Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate (WP 400.2011)
Mr. Santosh S. Jadahvar, Advocate (WP 378.2011)
Mr. G.L. Awale, Advocate h/f. Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar,
Advocate for the petitioner (WP 3884.2011)
Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate (WP 5442.2011)

¶92

A.G.P./s for the Respondent-State.

¶93

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. in all Writ Petitions

¶94

Advocate/s for the Respondent/s

¶95

Ms. Geeta Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4
(WP 275.2011)

¶96

Ms. Priti Diggikar, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and
3(WP 2896.2011)

¶97

(9) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶98

Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate for respondent no.4(WP 1605.2011)

¶99

Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for the respondent no.3 (WP
1973.2011)

¶100

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 (WP
400.2011)

¶101

Mr. J.J. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2 (WP 378.2011)
.....

¶102

 DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2011

¶103

JUDGMENT (PER - M.T. JOSHI, J.):

¶104

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard by consent.

¶105

2.In this group of Writ Petitions, the

¶106

Government resolution dated 5.8.2010 providing for
changed criterion for appointment to the honorary

¶107

post of Anganwadi Sevika at various Anganwadi Centres
under the Integrated Child Development Services are
challenged.

¶108

3.Earlier,Governmentresolutiondated
12.3.2008 was holding the field till the present

¶109

Government Resolution dated 5.8.2010 was enforced.

¶110

In the earlier Government Resolution, the minimum age

¶111

was fixed at 18 and upper age limit was 44 years and

¶112

JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶113

in case of Balwadi teachers, it was 55 years. By the
new Government resolution, the prescribed lower age
and upper age is between 25 to 35 years. Similarly,
while the earlier Government Resolution provide for
educational qualification as 8th standard,the new
Government resolution prescribe that the Anganwadi
Sevika should be 10th standard pass and below the
said educational qualification could be appointed as
a Helper (Madatnis). Thirdly, a new criterion of
small family is provided, whereunder it is provided
that the candidate should not have more than two
children.

¶114

4.In all these Writ Petitions, the grievances
are made on different counts. It was argued that
while issuing the new Government Resolution, no
statement of reason is given and directly the
Government resolution is issued. There is no nexus
between the changes those are made and the object
which is sought to be achieved by making the changes.
It was further argued that ordinarily educational
qualification corresponds to the age and, therefore,
the earlier criterion of fixing the lower age limit

¶115

(11) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶116

at 19 years was reasonable. It was also submitted that the manual of Integrated Child Development Services (for short " I.C.D.S. ") issued by the Central Government had provided for age group between 21 to 45 years and as against the said guidelines the new Government Resolution is issued. Lastly, as regards the small family criterion, it was submitted that since the concerned writ petitioner had three children before issuing of the Government resolution, the same would not be applicable in her case. Further, as regards the upper age criterion, an alternative argument was advanced by the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 2896 of 2011 that the petitioner being from reserved category, she was entitled for relaxation in the age limit, which is not provided by the Government resolution.

¶117

5.On the other hand, the learned A.G.P.

¶118

submitted that the manual issued by the Central
Government cannot be read as a statute. Even the

¶119

earlier Government resolution was not an exact
replica of the manual. He further submitted that
taking into consideration the nature of the services

¶120

(12) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶121

expected to be performed by the Anganwadi Sevika
(Madatnis), it was thought that a more mature lady
would be of much help who is required to perform
various duties in a village. He further submitted
that change in the criterion is a purely
administrative act. In such circumstances, the
learned A.G.P. wanted that the Petitions be
dismissed. Objection to the maintainability of the

¶122

Petitions was also taken on the ground that the
petitioners have equally efficacious alternate remedy

¶123

of raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes
Act.

¶124

6.As regards the last of the objection of

¶125

having alternate efficacious remedy, the petitioners
are challenging the issuance of Government resolution
and are not raising any industrial dispute within the

¶126

meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Therefore, the objection will have to be
over-ruled.

¶127

7. As regards the framing and re-framing of the policy, the learned A.G.P. relied on Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. V. State of Uttaranchal and others

¶128

(13) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶129

2007 (8) S.C.C. 418 , wherein it was held that when the petitioner fails to convince the Court that certain policy was arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of any statutory provision, the Government has power to frame and re-frame, change and re-change or adjust and re-adjust the policy.

¶130

8.The policy of fixing the eligibility

¶131

criterion of a candidate having not more than two
children was held to be not discriminatory as regards

¶132

the holding of Offices under the Panchayati Raj Act by the Supreme Court in Javed and others v. State of

¶133

Haryana and others AIR 2003 S.C. 3057 . The objection that the said dis-qualification should be applicable only as regards the third or next of the child being borne after the issuance of Government resolution cannot be accepted since it is for the State to provide for the relevant criterion in order to achieve the object of having a small family.

¶134

9.The manual issued by the Central Government

¶135

under the I.C.D.S. scheme cannot be equated with the
statute. Those are merely guidelines which could be
varied from State to State.

¶136

(14) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr

¶137

10.In viewof this matter, the Writ Petitions

¶138

are dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands

¶139

discharged.

¶140

 Sd/- Sd/-

¶141

 [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
arp/

Parwatabai Shankar Pamalwad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parwatabai Shankar Pamalwad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Afzaluddin Ustad Abdul Samad Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Hanuman Narhari Dhanve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Madhavrao Gabajirao Pimpaliskar Vs the State of Maharashra and Ors.

Bharat Lotan Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited Jodtala Tq Dist Hingoli through Chairman and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shrikant Chandrakant Saindane Vs the State of Mah and Ors.