Dismissed

Mrs. Changuna Pandurang Kuchekar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Woman and Child Welfare Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2018WP/9366/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a selection rejection where the petitioner received fewer marks than another candidate due to marks deduction for prior experience. The court upheld the impugned order dismissing the appeal as the Government Resolution did not cover private institution employment. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; the Divisional Commissioner's order upholding the selection of the successful candidate over the petitioner was maintained.

Mrs. Changuna Pandurang Kuchekar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

10 wp 9366.14.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 9366 of 2014

¶4

Mrs. Changuna Pandurang Kuchekar …..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and ors. …...Respondents

¶5

Mr. R. V. Bansode, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. R. M. Shinde, AGP for the State.

¶6

Mr. S. R. Ganbawale, advocate for the respondent for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.SADHANA JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 4^th APRIL, 2018.

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

The petitioner is claiming the post of Anganwadi Sevika. The petitioner competed along with others in the process of selection for this post. However, her claim was rejected and the respondent No.5 was appointed. The petitioner, being aggrieved, approached the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, by way of appeal. Her appeal was also dismissed and, therefore, she has invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present petition.

¶10

The impugned order as well as the affidavit filed by the Block Development Officer (Admn.), Pune Division, Pune on behalf of the

¶11

Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

¶12

10 wp 9366.14.doc

¶13

respondent No.2 makes it clear that both the petitioner and respondent No.5 were allowed to compete for the said post. However, the respondent No.5 got 49 marks and the petitioner got 39.2 marks, out of 100 and, therefore, the respondent No.5 was selected.

¶14

Mr. Bansode, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the Government Resolution dated 12^th March, 2008 and contended that, earlier, the petitioner was working as Balwadi Sevika and, therefore, she could not have been deprived of 10 marks on that count. The impugned order as well as the affidavit discloses that the petitioner was working as Balwadi Sevika in private institution and not in Government Undertaking. It further shows that the said Government Resolution dated 12^th March, 2008 does not give benefit to person like petitioner who was working as Balwadi Sevika in private institution.

¶15

The petitioner claims that the institution where she worked was run by Cantonment Board but there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was working in the institution run by the Cantonment Board. On the contrary, the certificate of the Sarpanch at page 60 shows that the petitioner herself was running Balwadi. This certificate is contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner.

¶16

Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

¶17

10 wp 9366.14.doc

¶18

The respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order after hearing both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5. The respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner has also taken into consideration the Government Resolution dated 12^th March, 2008, on which, the petitioner has heavily relied upon. After considering the submissions and the said Government Resolution, we find that the view taken by the respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune is correct and it cannot be disturbed by exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

(SMT. SADHANA JADHAV, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶20

Shubhada S Kadam 3/3

Mrs. Changuna Pandurang Kuchekar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Woman and Child Welfare Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Changuna Pandurang Kuchekar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Woman and Child Welfare Dept 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

Dhanesh Vishnu Gharat Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Sadashiv Jangnnath Dode Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, and Ors.

Vikas Laxman Karande Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Shaikh Sohel Mohammad Khalil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Education Dept and Ors.

Shri. Gagan Phirturam Jaiswar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Abdul Latif Mohmmed Siddique Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.