1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3100 OF 2008 (Sou. Laxmikanta Gajananji Yelne .v. Zilla Parishad and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 22ND AUGUST, 2008 Heard Shri S.A. Gordey, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.M. Mardikar, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, Shri A.G. Mujumdar, the learned AGP for the respondent No.2 and Shri V.K. Bisen, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3. The writ petition is directed against the order of appointment dated 23.04.2008, which is impugned in the petition, whereby the respondent No.3 came to be appointed as Anganwadi Sevika. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that because of some irregularities in the process of appointment, the respondent No.2 was appointed as Enquiry Officer to inquire in this regard. The report dated 18.07.2006 submitted by the respondent No.2 is annexed with the petition as Annexure-XIII. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in the said report, the Enquiry 2 Officer has given certain shortcomings so far as the respondent No.3 is concerned and also given certain recommendations. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Chief Executive Officer has ignored the report and appointed the respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Sevika. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that after the order of appointment, the respondent No.3 resumed the duties of Anganwadi Sevika with effect from 8th May, 2008. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, in our view, it will be appropriate for the Chief Executive Officer to reconsider the issue of appointment of the respondent No.3 afresh on its own merit as well as in view of the report dated 18.07.2006 submitted by the respondent No.2, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention that the impugned order, dated 23.04.2008 shall not come in the way of reconsideration of the issue of appointment of respondent No.3 afresh. We want to express that if the Chief Executive Officer, after due enquiry, is of the view that the order of respondent No.3 was in accordance 3 with law then the impugned order dated 23.04.2008 shall be confirmed; whereas if the conclusions arrived at by the Chief Executive Officer are otherwise in that event the impugned order dated 23.04.2008 will lose force of law. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.