1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3560 of 2009 (Baby s/o Ramchandra Khangar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Fulzele, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Shri R.M. Mardikar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED :- 18 th AUGUST, 2010 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 10-12-2008 passed by respondent No.2-Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, so also the order dated 28-9-2004 passed by respondent No.3- Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the termination order dated 16-11-2002 passed by respondent No.3- Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and prayed for reinstatement in services as Anganwadi Sevika with consequential benefits from 16-11-2002. 3. The petitioner earlier had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1173/2008, challenging the order dated 28-9-2004, so also her termination dated 16-11-2002 and that writ petition was withdrawn by her without seeking liberty either to file fresh petition or to adopt 2 appropriate remedy, challenging her termination. After withdrawal of the writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed revision before respondent No.2-Commissioner, Nagpur under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1964 (in short “the Rules”). The revision, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, was treated as appeal and it was dismissed as not maintainable under the provisions of the Rules vide order/letter dated 10-12-2008. The revision was directed against the order of termination dated 16-11-2002 issued by Child Development Project Officer. From perusal of Rule 15, it is clear that a revision and/or an appeal against the order passed by the Child Development Officer before the Commissioner was not maintainable. Under Rule 15 a parishad servant, who is aggrieved by an order in appeal preferred by him under Rule 13 is allowed to make an application for the revision of that order to the Commissioner of the division, if the order in appeal is passed by the Chief Executive Officer. In view thereof, the order dated 10-12-2008, in our opinion, cannot be faulted. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention to the other material to contend that the order of termination itself was wrong and therefore, the challenge to the said order can also be independently examined in writ petition. We have perused the material 3 placed before the Court and we found that the petitioner was, admittedly, appointed as Anganwadi Sevika on honarary basis and her services were terminated after conducting enquiry. There is no dispute that while conducting the enquiry principles of natural justice were followed. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their reply-affidavit have clearly stated that the petitioner was issued show-cause notice and after considering her explanation, the termination order was issued since all the charges were held to be proved against her. Thereafter respondent No.2-Commissioner gave approval to her termination. We have also perused the definitions of “district service” and 'parishad servant” in the Rules and we find that the petitioner is not covered by the definition of “parishad servant”. 5. It is in this backdrop, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned in the present petition. Moreover, as observed earlier, while withdrawing the earlier writ petition liberty was not sought by the petitioner to file fresh petition for challenging the orders dated 16-11-2002 and 28-9-2004, which were impugned in that petition, and on this ground also the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE pma