Dismissed

Sunita Sitaram Surwase and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Nov 2016WP/6178/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in writ petition No.6178/2015 dismissed the petition challenging the Anganwadi Supervisor recruitment process. The court rejected outright allegations of malpractice, fast-tracked evaluation, and denial of interviews due to lack of specific evidence.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.

Sunita Sitaram Surwase and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 6178/2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.6178/2015

¶6

Sau.Sunita W/o Sitaram Surwase & others.

¶7

 ...Petitioners..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

 ..Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Smt.Shubhangi D. More, Advocate for petitioners.
Smt.P.V.Diggikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 3.
Shri P.D.Syawanshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 4.
ShriS.A.Nagarsoge,AdvocateforRespondent
Nos.5,6,14,21,29 & 36.

¶13

Shri S.S.Dambe, Advocate for Respondent Nos.27,30,31 &
35.

¶14

.....

¶15

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 25.11.2016

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1]Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously

¶18

argued that the petitioners are working as Anganwadi

¶19

Madatnis in Beed District and the petitioners had filed

¶20

applications for the post of Anganwadi Supervisor as the

¶21

respondent nos.2 & 4 had issued an advertisement for the

¶22

said post. There were 35 posts of Anganwadi Supervisor

¶23

WP 6178/2015

¶24

- 2 -

¶25

advertised. The criterion is laid down by virtue of

¶26

various Government resolutions. The petitioners were
found eligible for the said post and as such were called

¶27

for the written examination. The petitioners appeared
for the written examination. The learned counsel submits
that the guidelines were issued that the candidates
appearing for the examination would not be entitled to
carry any cell phone, calculator or any other electronic
device. According to the learned counsel, contrary to

¶28

the said guidelines, many candidates were carrying cell
phones, calculators and electronic devices. The learned
counsel submits that large scale illegalities and mal-
practices had taken place at the centre. According to
the learned counsel, the examination was held from 11-00
a.m. to 12-30 p.m. and the result was published at 2-35
p.m. i.e. within two hours after the written examination

¶29

was held. The learned counsel submits that as per the

¶30

result-sheet, the answer key was supplied before 4-30
p.m. and before the supply of the answer key, the result

¶31

was published. Even objection was raised by the
petitioner, but to no avail. There was no responsible
officer to whom the objection could have been given, it

¶32

WP 6178/2015

¶33

- 3 -

¶34

being a holiday. None the less, immediately the

¶35

petitioners had lodged the protest. The learned counsel
submits that though the respondents published the list of
successful candidates, but against their numbers, marks
were not mentioned. The respondents conducted the oral

¶36

interviews on the next day without waiting for any

¶37

objection on the answer key. On the very same day, the
final result has been published showing the consolidated
marks of oral and written examination. The hurried

¶38

manner of conducting examination creates a doubt about

¶39

the procedure followed by the authorities. More than 700
candidates had appeared for the written examination and
within two hours, the result was published showing that

¶40

the answer-sheets are checked. The learned counsel

¶41

further submits that when large number of candidates are
making a grievance, then reasonable doubt would be raised

¶42

about the illegalities and mal-pratices being committed.

¶43

The candidates who were relatives of the members of the
selection committee and who had political connection were

¶44

selected. Deliberately less marks were given to the
petitioners. Even the candidates who had secured less
marks were called for interviews.

¶45

WP 6178/2015

¶46

2]The ratio was not properly maintained. The

¶47

affidavit is filed stating that the result was published
on at 4-40 p.m., however, if the time is seen on the said

¶48

list published at the Internet, the same is at 2-35 p.m.
According to the learned counsel, because of the mal-

¶49

practices committed, the selection process stands
vitiated.

¶50

respondent - Zilla Parishad submits that selection

¶51

process was conducted as per the guidelines. There were

¶52

35 posts, out of which 21 posts were meant for open

¶53

category. The candidates in the ratio of 1:3 were called

¶54

for from open category and the ratio of 1:5 for reserved

¶55

category. No mal-practices have been committed. The
entire process of written examination has been recorded
by the authorities with the help of camera. According to

¶56

the learned counsel, the answer key is to be published

¶57

for the benefit of the candidates with regard to the

¶58

objection that they may raise to the answer key and not

¶59

for examination. The written papers are checked as per
OMR technique i.e. Optical Magnetic Resonance.

¶60

4]We have considered the submissions canvassed by

¶61

WP 6178/2015

¶62

- 5 -

¶63

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶64

5]It is not the case of the petitioners that they

¶65

had secured more marks and still were not called for

¶66

interviews or were not considered. The grievance of the
petitioners is that deliberately less marks were given to
them and there were mal-practices during the process of
examination. The same cannot be readily inferred unless
and until specific instances to that effect are given.
Bald statements are made about the candidates carrying

¶67

the cell phones and electronic devices. In a writ
jurisdiction, vague pleas cannot be considered. It would
appear that the machine had scanned all the papers. The

¶68

answer key was uploaded at 4-00 p.m. to 4-30 p.m.,
whereas the list was published at 2-35 p.m. Only because
the job was done efficiently, we cannot presume mal-
practices or illegalities being committed. This Court
would be slow to interfere in case of bald allegations,
of course unless specific instances are pointed out. It

¶69

appears that the ratio of calling the candidates was

¶70

proper. The list of successful candidates was also
published after about two hours of the examination being
held. There does not appear to be any objection to the

¶71

WP 6178/2015

¶72

- 6 -

¶73

answer key.

¶74

6]In the light of the above, it would not be
possible to entertain the grievance of the petitioners.
The writ petition as such is disposed of. No costs.

¶75

(K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶76

ndk/ c25111623.doc

Sunita Sitaram Surwase and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Sitaram Surwase and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Osmanabad Zilla Samaj Seva Mandal Osmanabad through Its Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahsu Asaram Chavan and Others Vs the Union of India Thr Secretary New Delhi and Others

Subhash Bhausaheb Dube and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ambadas Shadeo Yedwar and Anr.

Sinkukumar Krishnakumar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Illyas Mamu Mohd Yusuf Lakhara Vs the Union of India and Ors.