Asmita Santosh Nirmal Alias Asmita Dattarao Kale Vs the Zilla Parishad, Nanded and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Asmita Santosh Nirmal Alias Asmita Dattarao Kale Vs the Zilla Parishad, Nanded and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed and set aside; note of the order to be taken in the service record of respondent No.3 for his arbitrary exercise of powers; respondent No.3 directed to permit the petitioner to resume immediately.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.3 could validly cancel the petitioner's appointment as Asha Worker on the ground that the Gram Panchayat was opposing the appointment, when the appointment was made pursuant to the Gram Panchayat's resolution. +1 more

Court's answer

Once respondent No.3 had appointed the petitioner on the basis of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, he should not have indulged in obliging the Gram Panchayat and straight away cancelling the petitioner's appointment on its later objection.

Ratio / Principle

No principles of natural justice were followed before passing the impugned order cancelling the appointment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Administrative law — Asha Worker appointment — cancellation within 15 days — Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Division Bench (Prafulla S. Khubalkar and Mangesh S. Patil, JJ.), December 9, 2024. The petitioner, recommended by the Gram Panchayat, was appointed as 'Asha Worker' by respondent No.3 on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 by order dated 06.12.2021 (Exh.A), pursuant to the Gram Panchayat's Resolution No.10 dated 22.01.2020 consenting to her appointment and communications dated 23.06.2020 (Exh.D) and 24.06.2020. On receiving further communication from the Gram Panchayat, respondent No.3 cancelled her appointment within 15 days, reciting that the Gram Panchayat was opposing it, and without notice to her. Held: (i) once the petitioner was appointed based on the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, respondent No.3 should not have obliged the Gram Panchayat by straight away cancelling the appointment; and (ii) no principles of natural justice were followed before passing the impugned order. Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed and set aside; a note of the order to be taken in the service record of respondent No.3 for arbitrary exercise of powers; respondent No.3 to permit the petitioner to resume immediately. Respondent No.5/Gram Panchayat did not respond despite service of notice.

2024:BHC-AUG:29097-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ASMITA SANTOSH NIRMAL ALIAS ASMITA DATTARAO KALE VERSUS

THE ZILLA PARISHAD, NANDED AND OTHERS

Mr.S.B.Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Wani, AGP for the respondent/State.

DATE : DECEMBER 9, 2024

PER COURT :

The petitioner, whose name was apparently recommended

by the Gram Panchayat for being appointed as a ‘Asha Worker’, was given an appointment by respondent No.3 on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by issuing appointment order, dated 06.12.2021 (Exh.A).

Apparently, after receiving some communication from the

Gram Panchayat, by the impugned order, he has cancelled her appointment within 15 days by mentioning that since the Gram Panchayat was opposing her appointment, he was cancelling it.

khs/Dec.2024/539

- 2 -

We have heard both the sides. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that inspite of service of notice, respondent No.5 / Gram Panchayat has not responded.

Admittedly, after respondent No.5 / Gram Panchayat passed Resolution No.10 on 22.01.2020 inter alia consenting for petitioner’s appointment as Asha Worker that she was appointed on 06.12.2021.

The impugned order of termination reads that the Gram Panchayat was opposing her appointment. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the Gram Panchayat has raised some objection at a later point of time, once he had appointed the petitioner based on the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, in our considered view, respondent no.3 should not have indulged in obliging the Gram Panchayat and straight away cancelling the petioner’s appointment.

Independently, by the communications dated 23.06.2020 Exh.D, the Sarpanch and the Gram Sevak on behalf of the Gram Panchayat had informed respondent No.3 regarding passing of the

khs/Dec.2024/539

resolution for consenting the appointment of the petitioner. By communication dated 24.06.2020, he had informed the Gram Panchayat that instead of one, the Gram Panchayat had suggested 2 individuals for being appointed, the petitioner having remained present and her documents having been verified, but not the other individual, and specifically intimated the Gram Panchayat that if the compliance was not made, one of them would be appointed. It is pursuant to this communication that the petitioner was appointed.

Apart therefrom even no principles of natural justice were followed before passing the impugned order.

Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. However, a note of this order shall be taken in the service record of respondent No.3 for his arbitrary exercise of the powers. Needless to state that respondent No.3 shall now permit the petitioner to resume immediately.

( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

khs/Dec.2024/539