Dismissed

Sau. Himani Sharad Gathe v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Mumbai and 3 Other

Bombay HC8 Sept 2014WP/3573/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the dismissal of her appeal against the cancellation of her appointment as Anganwadi Sevika. The court held that the impugned order, which appeared to have been crafted to ensure her selection, was just and proper, and thus refused interference in the writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sau. Himani Sharad Gathe Vs State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP3573-14

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3573/2014

¶5

(HIMANI SHARAD GATHE VERSUS STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri P.A. Gode, counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND P.R. BORA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2014.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia dated 26.06.2013 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirming the order of the Zilla Parishad cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Sevika.

¶14

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is no scope for interference with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner had admittedly secured 60 marks in the written examination and the respondent no.4 had secured 68 marks. Surprisingly, the respondent no.4 was granted only one mark out of ten at the interview, whereas the petitioner was granted full marks, i.e. 10/10. All the other candidates appearing at the interview also secured minimum 3.25 marks to 5 marks out of ten. The Chief Executive Officer found that the respondent no.4 was entitled to be selected even if she had secured two marks at the interview. However, with a view to deprive the respondent no.4 of the post, she was granted only one mark in the interview out of ten and the petitioner was granted full marks. According to the Chief Executive Officer, under some heads, the respondent no.4 was entitled to allotment of marks but, she was not granted marks

¶15

WP3573-14

¶16

¶17

with a view to ensure that the petitioner is appointed on the post of Anganwadi Sevika. The order appears to be just and proper and cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶18

JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

APTE

Sau. Himani Sharad Gathe v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Mumbai and 3 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Himani Sharad Gathe v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Mumbai and 3 Other

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

Prakash S/O Murari Tiple Vs the State of Maharashtra, Throguh Its Secretary, Department of Education, Mumbai and 3 Others

Diwakar Tanu Purke and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Zilla Parishad Works, Nagpur and 1

Mah.Rajya Prathamik Shikshak Samiti and Another Vs the State of Mah.Thr.Its Secy.and 2 Others

Mukund Raghunathrao Zodape Vs the State of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Baliram Dolaram Kapgate Vs the Education Officer, (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Bhandara and 2 Others

Ku. Manda Krushnarao Deulkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Amravati