1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1173 OF 2010 Parvatibai @ Mahananda Dilip Chamle (Narhare) Age : 23 years, Occ : Service as Anganwadi Helper/Nil R/o Anandwadi, Tq.Chakur, Dist.Latur. ..Petitioner V/s 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 (Copy to be served on G.P. of High Court at Aurangabad). 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist.Latur. 4. The Child Development Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project Panchayat Samiti, Chakur, Tq.Chakur, Dist.Latur. 5. Janabai Nannath Alapure Age : 25 years, Occ : Household, R/o Anandwadi, Tq.Chakur, Dist.Latur. ..Respondents ......... Mr.D.B. Pawar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.N.D. Sonawane holding for Mr.V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4. Mr.A.V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for respondent no.5. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 9th June, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard and disposed of finally, at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order rendered by the Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Panchayat Samiti, Chakur, whereby her appointment as Anganwadi Helper was cancelled. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Anganwadi Helper at village Anandwadi under Chakur Tahsil. She is widow. She secured highest marks during process of selection and as such was appointed under the notification issued by the Zilla Parishad on 28.11.2008. The respondent no.5 was the second in merit and is unsuccessful candidate. The respondent no.5 made complaint to the effect that the certificate regarding the death of husband of the petitioner was incorrect and bogus because it indicated that her husband died at Anandwadi though he died at village Bhadi. According to the respondent no.5, the petitioner was not resident of village Anandwadi but was residing at village Bhadi, and therefore, her claim that she was inhabitant of village Anandwadi was wrong. 3 Since, she was not inhabitant of village Anandwadi, she was ineligible for appointment as Anganwadi Helper at Anandwadi. The learned Divisional Commissioner directed holding of enquiry by the Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur. The Chief Officer conducted certain enquiry. He recorded finding that the petitioner was residing at Anandwadi after death of her husband from 2007 onwards. He however recorded a finding that the death certificate produced by the petitioner was untrue. Considering such enquiry report, the Child Development Project Officer, Chakur passed the impugned order whereby the appointment order issued to the petitioner was cancelled. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned A.G.P. I have perused the relevant order and affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4 along with reply affidavit filed by Shri.Nandkishor Shivajirao Sherkhane, Child Development Project Officer, Chakur. Copies of the enquiry papers are also filed. The report of Deputy Chief Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Latur purports to show that the petitioner is residing with her father by name Shri.Laxman Kisan Narhare since 2007 onwards. The enquiry papers also indicates that she was residing with her husband after the marriage at village Bhadi. It appears that her husband died on 21.12.2003 at village Bhadi and thereafter 4 somewhere in 2007, she migrated to village Anandwadi and started residing with her father. 5. The question is as to whether, the petitioner could be regarded as disqualified candidate for the reason that she was not inhabitant of village Anandwadi at the relevant time when she had sought employment order that she was appointed as Anganwadi Helper. It appears that for appointment as Anganwadi Helper, the candidate is required to be a local inhabitant and that is the criteria to be followed besides other parameters. Where and when her husband died, indeed, is not much relevant factor. Obviously, whether husband of the petitioner died at village Bhadi, whether, he died at village Anandwadi and whether, he died in 2003 or in 2004 are not material questions. The enquiry ought to have been focused around single issue, namely, the place of residence of petitioner. That was the only objection raised by the respondent no. 5. It is unnecessary to see whether, the death certificate produced by her is incorrect or that some other certificate was correct. May be her husband was not inhabitant of village Anganwadi but it does not make the petitioner ineligible for such appointment, if it is proved that she was inhabitant of said village at the time when the selection process was started. As stated earlier, the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Chief Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Latur 5 clearly established that she was residing at village Anandwadi at the time of her appointment. The petitioner did not take any advantage of the death certificate of her husband nor production of the death certificate was essential to make her eligible for selection as Helper of Anganwadi. Needless to say, the petitioner is deprived of opportunity to work as Anganwadi Helper. Her appointment ought not to have been cancelled for the extraneous reason, namely, the death certificate of her husband was found to be incorrect. Considering the aforegoing discussion, it will have to be said that the impugned order is quite unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp1173.10(1)