Dismissed

Sau. Naina Rameshwar Dhonge v. Selection Committee, of Anganwadi Sevika Under Panchayat Samiti Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Feb 2012WP/534/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition challenging a fresh recruitment process for Anganwadi Sevika. The Court held that candidates on a select or wait list have no inherent right to appointment, justifying the department's decision for a fresh selection.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed holding that petitioner has no inherent right to appointment and fresh selection was justified.

Sau. Naina Rameshwar Dhonge Vs Selection Committee, of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

0302wp534.12.odt

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.534 of 2012.

¶6

Sau.Naina Rameshwar Dhonge

¶7

..vs..

¶8

Selection Committee, through Secretary and others.

¶9

=-=-==-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶10

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Court's or Judges Order Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶11

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶12

Mr. V.N.Morande, Adv. for the petitioner.

¶13

 C ORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND

¶14

P.B.VARALE, JJ.

¶15

DATED: 3rd FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶16

The petitioner has challenged the action of respondent no.5 in initiating a fresh recruitment process for selection of Anganwadi Sevika for village Naveen Waghada.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier selection process one candidate i.e. respondent no.2 – Ku.Vanshri d/o Yadav Raut was selected at Sr.No.1 and the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.2 in the select list, however, the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur has set aside the selection of respondent no.2 by holding that the same was made by illegal and corrupt means. The learned counsel further submits that since the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur has set aside the selection of respondent no.2, the petitioner should have been straightly appointed. There is no justification in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

¶19

0302wp534.12.odt

¶20

It is well settled proposition in law that the person even on the select list has no inherent rights even to get appointed. The name of the petitioner as such was in wait list, as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In our view, the Department has rightly taken a decision to have a fresh selection through new Selection Procedure.

¶21

If a fresh selection process is undertaken, it is open to the petitioner to take part in the same subject to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria, if any, in this behalf.

¶22

Subject to what is stated above, the petition is dismissed.

¶23

JUDGE JUDGE.

¶24

chute

Sau. Naina Rameshwar Dhonge v. Selection Committee, of Anganwadi Sevika Under Panchayat Samiti Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Naina Rameshwar Dhonge v. Selection Committee, of Anganwadi Sevika Under Panchayat Samiti Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kewaldas Gyaniram Tembhekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt. Laxmibai Haribhau Gadikar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and 4 Ors.

Sukhdev Shankar Kumbhare and Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Krishnagopal Wasudeoprasad Mishra, Katol Vs the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and 12 Others

Nagpur Distt. Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Vs State of Mah Thr. Its Secy. and 1 Anr.

Mukund S/O Gopal Dange Vs Haribhau S/O Shivram Sakore and 11 Others