Petitioner was appointed as a substitute Balaktai when the regular employee availed long leave. She was terminated when the regular employee returned. The court held the petitioner had no right to employment under the new scheme. Writ petition dismissed.
Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 1 )
wp1031.01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1031 OF 2001
1. Smt. Neelawatibai d/o. Janardhan Bokan.. Petitioner Age. 42 years, Occ. Service, R/o. At post. Pangari Gosavi, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondents2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna.
3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Partur, Dist. Jalna.
4. The Children Development Project Officer, “Ekatmik Bal Vikas Yojana” Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna, Zilla Parishad, Jalna.
5. Smt. Mangala d/o, Sonaji Chopade, Age. 45 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Pangari Gosavi, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna.
Mr. S.P. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.M.S. Patni, AGP for respondent/State.
Mr.V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 4.
Mr.B.R. Survase, Advocate for respondent No.5.
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
A.I.S. CHEEMA,JJ.
DATED :04.09.2014
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]:-
1.The petitioner challenged order dated 26.12.2000
dismissing her from the post of Balaktai. The facts
leading to this litigation are as under :-
2.In 1991, the petitioner was appointed as
Balaktai as substitute in place of respondent No.5. Her
letter of appointment mentions that since respondent No.5
had availed long leave, she was appointed for a period of
few months in her place. Thereafter, the petitioner's
appointment as substitute Balaktai continued for number
of years. On the other hand, respondent No.5 remained
unemployed and despite of her representations to the
Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, she could
not get employment. Her substitute-petitioner succeeded
in getting appointment order year after year. Respondent
No.5 continued her complaints and ultimately after due
enquiry it was noticed that the petitioner's appointment
was not lawful. She was thus terminated as stated above
on 26.12.2000. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner
did not come to this Court.
3.It appears that during 1999-2000 new scheme for
conducting Anganwadi was floated by the Government vide
Government Resolution dated 31.08.1999. As per this
resolution on 14.02.2001, the petitioner was called for
interview for the post of Anganwadi Sevika. The
petitioner attended this interview and despite her
previous experience, she was not selected. Thus, after
this the petition came to be filed.
4.Fortunately, for the petitioner at interim
stage, her service was protected and she continued for
quite some time. In the meantime in 2008, this petition
was dismissed for default. Taking advantage of this,
respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.5 as Anganwadi
Sevika.
5.The question is - whether the petitioner has any
right to get employment as Anganwadi Sevika or as
Balaktai. The answer to this is in negative.
6.Since beginning, admittedly, the petitioner's
appointment was temporary and as a substitute for
respondent No.5. This means that no sooner respondent
No.5 joined her post, the petitioner would lose her job.
This position of the petitioner did not change for nine
long years. Apparently, the petitioner somehow managed
to get continuation, keeping respondent No.5 out of
service. This apparently was injustice to respondent
No.5 and the same was ultimately redressed. On the other
hand, the scheme under which the petitioner was working
as Balaktai had also came to an end. New scheme
contemplated appointment of earlier workers as Anganwadi
Sevika. Had the petitioner been competent and
meritorious, she could have appointed as Anganwadi Sevika
in 2001. But, even there the petitioner failed. The
petitioner apparently does not have any right to continue
in service.
7.The petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged.
snk /2014/SEP14/wp1031.01
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, appointed temporarily as a substitute, has any right to get employment as Anganwadi Sevika or Balaktai.
Whether the termination of the petitioner serving as a substitute for respondent No. 5 was lawful.
Smt. Neelawatibai d/o. Janardhan Bokan
The State of Maharashtra
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna
Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Partur
The Children Development Project Officer, Ekatmik Bal Vikas Yojana
Smt. Mangala d/o. Sonaji Chopade
A.V. Nirgude
A.I.S. Cheema
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court