Anita Vinayak Sangale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anita Vinayak Sangale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 07.07.2025 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Respondent No.2 (Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed) for fresh consideration; Petitioner, Respondent No.4 and other noticed officers to remain present before Respondent No.2 on 19.09.2025; Respondent No.2 to adhere to the principles of natural justice, hear all parties, place their say on record and pass a well reasoned order within four weeks from 19.09.2025; interim order granted by the Court to continue during the pendency of the proceedings before Respondent No.2.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order cancelling the Petitioner's appointment as Anganwadi Madatnis was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without notice or opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to the Petitioner; on 07.07.2025 only the concerned officers of Respondent Zilla Parishad and the complainant were heard. This is a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice.

Ratio / Principle

Irrespective of the merits of the allegation against her, the Petitioner ought to have been granted an appropriate opportunity of hearing and the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed before passing the impugned order.

Key takeaways

The Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2 who passed the impugned order, could not justify the violation of such fundamental principles of natural justice; therefore the Petition is allowed only on that ground.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition allowed. The impugned order dated 07.07.2025, cancelling the Petitioner's appointment on the post of Anganwadi Madatnis on a complaint by Respondent No.4 alleging that she was not a local resident, was passed behind her back: on 07.07.2025 only the concerned officers of Respondent Zilla Parishad and the complainant were heard and no notice was issued to the Petitioner. The Court held this to be a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice, which the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2 who passed the order, could not justify; whether the Petitioner had an explanation to the allegation was left open. The impugned order was quashed and set aside and the matter remanded to Respondent No.2, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, for fresh consideration: the Petitioner, Respondent No.4 and other noticed officers to remain present on 19.09.2025; hearing to be given to all parties, their say placed on record, and a well reasoned order passed within four weeks from 19.09.2025; the interim order to continue during the proceedings. The Petition was entertained despite an alternative remedy before the Divisional Commissioner under a Government Resolution scheme because of the alleged serious violation of natural justice.

939-WP-9064-2025.odt

2025:BHC-AUG:24124-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

939 WRIT PETITION NO. 9064 OF 2025

ANITA VINAYAK SANGALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. R. A. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State Ms Rani R. Tandale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mr. N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.4

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 10.09.2025

PER COURT :-

In this Petition, while issuing notice on 23.07.2025, this Court took note of the fact that although there is an alternative remedy available to the Petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Divisional Commissioner in terms of the scheme recognized in a Government Resolution, the Petition deserves to be entertained for the reason that the Petitioner is alleging serious violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order has been admittedly passed behind the back of the Petitioner.

1 of 3

(( 2 )) 939-WP-9064-2025

By the impugned order, the appointment of the Petitioner

on the post of Anganwadi Madatnis was cancelled on the basis of a complaint filed by Respondent No.4, alleging that the Petitioner is not a local resident and hence not eligible for being appointed on the said post.

We find that a bare perusal of the impugned order itself shows that on the date of hearing i.e. 07.07.2025, only the concerned officers of Respondent Zilla Parishad and the complainant were heard and even notice was not issued to the Petitioner before passing such a drastic order, canceling her appointment. We find that this is a clear example of blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. As to whether the Petitioner has an explanation with regard to the allegation made against her is a different matter, but she ought to have been granted appropriate opportunity and principles of natural justice ought to have been followed before passing the impugned order.

Since the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2 who passed the impugned order could not justify the violation of such fundamental principles of natural justice, we are inclined to allow this Petition only on the said ground.

2 of 3

(( 3 )) 939-WP-9064-2025

Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.07.2025 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration.

The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.4 and other officers who were issued notices when the impugned order was passed, shall remain present before Respondent No.2 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, on 19.09.2025. The Respondent No.2 shall adhere to the principles of natural justice and give appropriate opportunity of hearing to all the parties and place their say on record and thereafter, pass a well reasoned order in the matter. The exercise be completed expeditiously and in any case within four weeks from 19.09.2025.

Interim order granted by this Court, shall continue to operate during the pendency of the proceeding before Respondent No.2.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANISH PITALE, J. ]

SMS

3 of 3