Dismissed

Kashibai Pandhari Kamble v. State of Maha and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Feb 2018WP/5397/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Bench at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition challenging the appointment of a rival as an Anganwadi Karyakarti. The court observed the petitioner had participated in the 2004 recruitment and failed. Finding the dispute arose from political influence claims unsupported by evidence and noting a fourteen-year delay, the court refused to entertain the petition, offering

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Rule discharged. Petitioner allowed to participate in future recruitment for other vacancies as a special case.

Kashibai Pandhari Kamble Vs State of Maha and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP 5397/2004

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5397 OF 2004

¶5

Kashibai d/o. Pandhari Kambale Age: 31 years, Occ.:Household, R/o.Netragaon, Post: Banshelk, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through, Secretary Woman and Child welfare Development, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 2. The Officer Child Welfare Project, and Convenor Member of the Selection Committee Consolidated Child Welfare Survive Scheme, Udgir, Dist. Latur 3. Asha d/o. Bharat Suryawanshi, Age 18, R/o. Netragaon, Post. Banshelki, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur 4. Education Officer Zilla Parishad Latur Tq. and Dist. Latur (Primary) (Amendment as per Court order dated 07/06/2017) .. **RESPONDENTS ***** Miss Sheetal Salunke, Advocate holding for Shri.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for Petitioner;

¶6

Shri. S.M. Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1; Shri M.M. Jadhav, Advocate holding for Shri. P.V.Barde,

¶7

2 WP 5397/2004

¶8

Advocate for respondent no.3;

¶9

Shri E.P.Sawant, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4.

¶10

CORAM : SUNIL P.DESHMUKH & P.R.BORA, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 12^th February, 2018.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER: SUNIL P.DESHMUKH,J.)

¶13

Petitioner is aggrieved by selection of Respondent No.3 for appointment to the post of `Anganwadi Karyakarti’ at village Netragaon in Udgir taluka.

¶14

Challenge to appointment is posed on the background that petitioner had worked for more than two years as `Balwadi Shikshika’ in Balwadi at village Netragaon. Her services had been brought to a grinding halt in view of policy decision of the State dated 02.06.1992 closing down existing Balwadis wherever there are Anganwadis and wherever Anganwadi would be opened, Balwadi was to be closed down and under Government Resolution dated 24^th October, 1994 Balwadi Sevikas were to be considered and appointed as ' Anganwadi Sevikas' giving them preference on the condition of having worked in Balwadi for two years liberating them for

¶15

WP 5397/2004

¶16

¶17

education qualification required.

¶18

. Government Resolution dated 24^th October, 1994

¶19

reads thus, -

¶20

,dkfRed cky fodkl lsok ;kstuasrxZr lq: dj.;kar ;s.kk&;k vax.kokMa;ke/;s] R;kfBdk.kh lq: vlysyh ckyokMh can dsyh vlsy rj rsFkhyckyokMh lsfodsl vax.kokMh lsfodk Eg.kqu use.kqd ns.;kackcr

¶21

egkjk"V~ 'kklu]

¶22

efgyk o cky dY;k.k foHkkx] dzekad % vk;lhMh & 1094@99] dza-367@6] ea=ky;] eqacbZ & 400 032fnukad %& 24 vkWDVkscj] 1994-

¶23

okpkos %&

¶24

1- 'kklu fu.kZ;] xzke fodkl foHkkx] dza- vk;lhMh&1091@iz-dza2450@47]

¶25

fnukad %& 2 tqu] 19922'kklu fu.kZ;] vkfnoklh fodkl foHkkx] dzalafd.kZ&1087@24159@izdza-@989@dk-13] fnukad %& 17-09-1994-

¶26

izLrkouk%&

¶27

'kklu fu.kZ;] xzke fodkl foHkkx] fnukad %& 2 tqu] 1992 vUo;s ?ks.;kar vkysY;k fu.kZ;kauqlkj T;k fBdk.kh vax.kokMh o f'k{k.k foHkkxkph ckyokMh lq: vlsy rsFkhy ckyokMh can dj.;kar ;koh o iq<s T;k fBdk.kh vax.kokM;k lq: gksrhy R;k fBdk.kP;k ckyokM;kgh can dj.;kar ;kO;kr] vlk fu.kZ; ?ks.;kar vkysyk vkgs- R;kuqlkj ,dkfRed cky fodkl lsok ;kstusps izdYi T;k T;k fBdk.kh lq: >kysys vkgsr R;k fBdk.kh ojhy dk;Zi/nrh l/;k dk;kZfUor vkgs-

¶28

'kklu fu.kZ; %&

¶29

'kklukus ,dkfRed cky fodkl lsok ;kstuasrxZar vax.kokMh

¶30

4 WP 5397/2004

¶31

lq: djrkauk rsFks vlysyh ckyokMh can >kY;kaoj lnjhy vax.kokMhr R;kp ckyokMharhy lsfodsl Rojsus vax.kokMh lsfodk Eg.kqu fu;qDrh ns.;kapk fu.kZ; ?ksrysyk vkgs- R;kdfjrk ckyokMh lsfodk ;k inkoj dke dj.kk&;k efgysph lsok nksu o"ksZ iq.kZ >kysyh vlkoh- ckyokMh lsfodk Eg.kqu nksu o"kkZis{kk tkLr lsok >kysY;k efgyk deZpk&;kauk f'k{k.kk ckcrph vV fo'ks"k ckc Eg.kqu f'kfFky dj.;kapkgh fu.kZ; 'kklukus ?ksrysyk vkgs-

¶32

2- lapkyd] ,dkfRed cky fodkl lsok ;kstuk o eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh] ftYgk ifj"kn ;kauh lnj fu.kZ;kaizek.ks R;kaP;k ftYg;kar eatqj >kysY;k izdYikae/;s vax.kokMh lsfodsph use.kqd djrkauk ;k fu.kZ;kph dkVsdksji.ks vaeyctko.kh djkoh o rnuarj jkfgysY;k tkxkaoj brj mesnokjkae/kqu vax.kokMh lsfodkaph use.kqd djkoh-

¶33

egkjk"V~kps jkT;iky ;kaP;k vkns'kkauqlkj o ukaokus “

¶34

Learned Counsel for petitioner has further referred to Government Resolution dated 31^st August, 1999 stating that the Government has continued the decision in Government Resolution of 1994, referred to above, a Balwadi Sevika , who has completed two years’ service, concession as regards educational qualification has been given to such Balwadi Sevika while making appointment as Anganwadi Sevika . She refers to clause 4 of the said Government Resolution dated 31.8.1999 and submits that the Government Resolution provides that

¶35

5 WP 5397/2004

¶36

while making appointment as `Anganwadi Sevika’ , first preference has to be given to those candidates who have served as ' Balwadi Shikshak/Shikshika' . Learned Counsel contends that, however, while making appointment of ' Angawadi Karyakarti' in the year 2004 at village Netragaon, these stipulations under the Government Resolutions were ignored and bye-passed.

¶37

The petitioner further submits that although she had applied for the post and undergone the recruitment process for appointment to the post of _Anganwadi Shikshika'_ , yet her preferential claim for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti' had been ignored and under political influence of local zilla parishad and panchayat samiti members, respondent No.3 had been appointed. She submits that the petitioner is otherwise qualified to be appointed to the post of _Anganwadi Karyakarti_ ' and deserves to be given preferential treatment pursuant to Government Resolution of 1994. But, disregarding the same, respondent No.3 has been appointed and she is thus before the court praying for setting aside appointment order of respondent No.3 and to give to petitioner the post of Anganwadi Sevika/Karyakarti' pursuant to Government Resolutions.

¶38

6 WP 5397/2004

¶39

Aforesaid submissions are being countered by respondents No.2 and 3 stating that the Government Resolution of 1994 is in respect of opening new Anganwadis and further contends that Anganwadi at village Netragaon had been preexisting Anganwadi and as such, the Government Resolution would strictly not apply in such a case. Apart from aforesaid, it is submitted that the recruitment process for appointment to the post of _Anganwadi Karyakarti'_ had been undertaken pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 1.2.1996. The petitioner has participated in the same and having not been selected, thereafter she has approached this court. Therefore, it is submitted by them that petitioner is estopped from claiming appointment to the post of _Anganwadi Karyakarti'_ at Netragaon replacing respondent No.3. It is further submitted that the petition suffers delay and laches .

¶40

Learned Counsel Mr. Sawant states that presently there are about two vacancies available, one at Islampur and another at Chighali and if the petitioner participates in recruitment process, he has instructions to state that petitioner would be considered in accordance with recruitment process undertaken, giving let up to petitioner in respect of age and educational qualification, as referred to in the Government

¶41

WP 5397/2004

¶42

¶43

Resolutions dated 24.10.1994 and 31.8.1999.

¶44

While submissions are so advanced, it emerges that Anganwadi at village Netragaon was pre-existing Anganwadi and further that there has been closure of Balwadi at village Netragaon in view of availability of Anganwadi already running there. Subsequently, post of Anganwadi Karyakarti had become vacant on resignation of incumbent there and accordingly recruitment process had been undertaken in 2004 pursuant to Government Resolution of 1996 and the petitioner had participated in said recruitment process. Having undergone said process of recruitment and being unsuccessful, it is difficult to consider that petitioner’s request for dislodging respondent No.3, is tenable. Although it is contended that Respondent No.3 is appointed due to political clout, there is nothing to show there was ever any such influence. It is not the case that respondent No.3 is not qualified nor any malafides are attached to her selection in the recruitment process. Fourteen years after respondent No.3 has been working on said post dissuades us from acceding to the request made under the writ petition of setting aside appointment of respondent No.3. In the circumstances, the request made under the writ petition is not being entertained.

¶45

¶46

WP 5397/2004

¶47

The petitioner may take opportunity, as is open under the concession given on instructions as submitted on behalf of respondent zilla parishad and Child Development Project Office, Udgir and she may participate in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakartis at Islampur and Chighali irrespective of her age and educational qualification as and when recruitment process would resume.

¶48

Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that there may be other impediments while her claim may be considered. However, learned Counsel Mr.Sawant, on instructions, states that petitioner's application as a special case may be accepted and would be considered along with other applications.

¶49

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule

¶50

discharged.

¶51

(P.R.BORA) (SUNIL P.DESHMUKH) JUDGE JUDGE

¶52

bdv/

Kashibai Pandhari Kamble v. State of Maha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashibai Pandhari Kamble v. State of Maha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dagadu Nivrutti Bhusnar Vs State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dagadu Nivrutti Bhusnar and Ors.

State of Maha Vs Sk Tayar Sk Rajjak Manyar and Ors.

The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise Vs Pravin Bapurao Visare

Abdul Sayeed Abdul Razak Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Husanebi Jabde Dadamiya Shaikh Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Latur