Jyoti W/O Ramprasad Kawade vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. In spite of service, none for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶19

Present petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the respondent No.1-Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of termination dated 12.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2 was dismissed. The petitioner is also challenging the order passed by respondent No.2- the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia, whereby services of the petitioner as an “Anganwadi Madatnis” came to be invalidated without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner thereby absolute violation of principles of natural justice.

¶20

The Zilla Parishad published advertisement (page 42) on 02.03.2023, wherein educational qualification is prescribed as

¶21

wp 6035-2024.odt 3/10

¶22

passing of 12^th Standard examination of State Education Board or equivalent thereto. The petitioner applied in pursuance to this advertisement, accordingly came to be appointed vide order dated 13.07.2023. It needs to be noted here that it is specifically mentioned in the appointment order that she was appointed as per the terms in the Government Resolution dated 02.02.2022. She was directed to produce self attested documents wherein she was required to submit certificate of educational qualification along with other documents.

¶23

Apart from this, one undertaking was obtained by the department from the petitioner on 01.10.2023 that she is resident of Atri and she is having knowledge of Marathi as well as Hindi reading and writing. She joined services on 14.07.2022. If the impugned order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia, dated 12.02.2024 is seen, the advertisement was published on 02.03.2023, provisional selection list published on 27.03.2023, the modified list published on 08.05.2023, selection list was published on 17.05.2022 and appointment order is issued on 13.07.2020. It appears that one Ruchi Anmol Janbandhu,

¶24

wp 6035-2024.odt 4/10

¶25

respondent No.4 filed complaint on 01.11.2023 and the said complaint was not only entertained but was allowed and she came to be appointed in place of present petitioner without granting any opportunity to the petitioner to submit her contention.

¶26

It is pertinent to note that in Government Resolution dated 02.02.2023 in regard to the appointment of Anganwadi Sevika Column No.3, specifically prescribed time limit for raising objection/complainant and for filing appeals mentioned in Clause 6(a), which reads as under:

¶27

“(v) fuoM izfdz;sfo:/n rdzkj o vfiy dj.ks %& vax.kokMh lsfodk] enruhl o feuh vax.kokMh lsfodk ;k eku/kuh inkojhy ?kksf”kr fuoMhlanHkkZr dks.kR;kgh mesnokjkph R;kP;koj vU;k; >kY;kph rdzkj vlY;kl R;kauh xzkeh.k o vkfnoklh izdYikP;k ckcrhr lacaf/kr eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh (ftYgk ifj”kn) o ukxjh izdYikP;k ckcrhr lacaf/kr foHkkxh; mivk;qDr] efgyk o cky fodkl foHkkx ;kapsdMs fuoM ;knh ?kksf”kr >kY;kiklwu 30 fnolkaP;k vkr rdzkj djkoh- R;kuarj vkysY;k rdzkjhph n[ky ?ks.;kr ;sÅ u;s- ;k vf/kdk&;kauh rdzkjhph lR;rk iMrkGwu fu.kZ; ?;kok-”

¶28

In view of this Clause after publication of selection list, the complaint/objection/appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the publication of list. It is also specifically prescribed that the complaint received thereafter shall not be entertained.

¶29

wp 6035-2024.odt 5/10

¶30

In spite of this fact, there is a delay of around 6 months in filing appeal was entertained by respondent No.2. By the time, the petitioner joined Services on 13.07.2023 and there was no complaint about any language by any of the authority. Thus entertaining the complaint after the prescribed limit itself is contradictory to the provisions of Government. Without considering The rights accrued in favour of petitioner, no opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner, which means total denial of principles of natural justice and amounts to arbitrary action. The petitioner filed appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer against the order of Chief Executive Officer.

¶31

I have also gone through the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner. It appears that he has not applied his independent mind and only considered contention of the parties and the Integrated Child Development Services Project Office. The Divisional Commissioner has not considered the fact that the complainant Mrs Ruchi Janbandhu lodged complaint against one Chhaya Bisen. However, at the relevant time, she has not filed any complaint against the present petitioner, which shows that she was

¶32

wp 6035-2024.odt 6/10

¶33

aware that time prescribed for raising objection was up to 20.05.2023. There is no allegation against the petitioner that she has misrepresented or committed any fraud. As such, her documents are verified twice by the concerned Selection Committee and after due verification of the same, she came to be appointed.

¶34

In view thereof, the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad as well as the Divisional Commissioner is illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The Executive Officer Zilla Parishad even has not granted any hearing to the petitioner. It also appears from the record that one undertaking has taken from the petitioner that she is having knowledge of Hindi as well as Marathi reading and writing. The educational qualification, which is prescribed is the State Board Examination and equivalent thereto. Even if it is presumed that the State Board means Maharashtra State Education Board still, she has having Madhya Pradesh State Education Board Certificate. The department is also aware about the fact that how many children’s in the Anganwadi are having mother tongue Marathi and how many students are having other mother tongue than Marathi. After

¶35

wp 6035-2024.odt 7/10

¶36

verifying all the data, the petitioner came to be appointed as “Anganwadi Madatnis”.

¶37

Learned Counsel for petitioner relied on Thahira P. Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and others (2018) 6 SCC 446 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

¶38

“16. There also must be some adherence to the timelines held out to all candidates. In the present case, all the candidates were informed that if they had any objection to the check-list, they should file an objection before 1 p.m. on 26-5-2011. Kadeeja did not file her objection within the prescribed time. As such, the Administration was fully justified in not considering her objection or rejecting it as being beyond the prescribed time. Adherence to such timelimits, if not strictly followed, can again lead to uncertainties particularly if other candidates also start raising objections after the cut-off date and providing some justification for the delay. In such circumstances, the process of selection would get bogged down and unduly prolonged which would neither serve the interest of the institution concerned nor the management of affairs of the institution.

¶39

Consequently, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court needlessly opened up a new avenue for challenging the appointment of Thahira as Social Education Organiser. Both the Tribunal and the High Court ought to have exercised due restraint given the time-limits for raising an

¶40

wp 6035-2024.odt 8/10

¶41

objection by the Administration and the actual objection raised by Kadeeja.”

¶42

The learned Counsel for petitioner also relied on Asha Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others 2015 SCC OnLine HP 3201 , wherein similar facts involved in the said matter. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court held as under:

¶43

“It was open for the respondent No.3 herein to, at the earliest within 15 days from 9.8.2007 when the authority concerned declared one Pushpa Devi to be the candidate selected for appointment as an Anganwari worker at Anganwari centre, Rihari challenge her appointment. However, the respondent No. 3 omitted to do so. Her omission to challenge the appointment of Pushpa Devi at the earliest in as much as within 15 days from 9.8.2007 by preferring an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla with the impleadment of the petitioner herein as a party respondent, for hers being debarred while hers being placed above her in the rankings by the authority concerned, to on acceptance of her appeal by the appellate authority to claim appointment, estops the respondent No. 3 to belatedly concert to challenge the appointment of the petitioner. In view of above both the Annexures impugned before this Court are quashed and set aside Dehors the aforesaid, the respondents No. 1 and 2 shall not stand disempowered to in accordance with law initiate an inquiry qua the sanctity of the Scheduled Caste certificate held and

¶44

wp 6035-2024.odt 9/10

¶45

produced by the petitioner before the interviewing committee concerned and thereupon determine whether the marks awarded to the petitioner on its strength in the interview/test held for selecting an Anganwari Worker/helper at Anganwari Centre Rihari was tenable or not. The petition stands disposed of as also the pending applications, if any.”

¶46

Order passed by Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Gondia, is totally in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the law position as well as Government Resolutions. Divisional Commissioner also failed to consider the illegality committed by Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia. As such, both the orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Gondia as well as Divisional Commissioner, are liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶49

ii) The order dated dated 07.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No. Visha./karya.11 (6)/Pr.Kr.-29/kavi/626/2024 as well as order dated 12.02.2024, passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶50

wp 6035-2024.odt 10/10

¶51

iii) Consequently, the order dated 04.04.2024, passed by Children Development Project Officer, Tiroda is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶52

iv) The petitioner be restored to her original position and reinstated her on the post she was holding before invalidation her claim and termination.

¶53

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶54

(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶55

R.S. Sahare

¶56

Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 21/05/2025 15:53:41

Jyoti W/O Ramprasad Kawade v. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti W/O Ramprasad Kawade v. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abdul Kalam a. Mussawar, Thr. P.O.a., Abdul Alim Abdul Kalam Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Karanja (Lad), Washim and Others

Mahadeo Sadashiv Ghope vs Shemba Shikshan Samiti Shemba, Bk. Nandura through Its Secretary, Shri P. S. Supe and Others

Rajendra Bhaurao Bijwar vs Nilkanth Modkuji Ther and Another

Dayaram S/O Baliram Bhaisare Vs the Bharat Education Society, through President, Wardha and 4 Others

Zilla Parishad, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Amravati and Another vs Pradeep Bhaurao Pokale

Vijaykumar S/O Namdeo Jambhulkar vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others