AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4424 OF 2008 Smt. Meerabai Popat Jhadav & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Rypesh Nalawade for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Bhosle, A.G.P. for the State. Mr. M.B. Mehere for respondents 6 and 7. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The Central Government initiated Integrated Child Development Project in 1984. The Zilla Parishads have to implement the Scheme. The Project Officers were appointed in respective Talukas of the State of Maharashtra for implementation of the aforesaid Scheme. 2. The State Government, as per directions of the Central Government, by Resolution dated 5/1/1998 created posts of AJN 2 supervisors and directed to fill the posts of supervisors. 25% of the supervisors were to be filled from the Anganwadi Sevikas working under the Integrated Child Development Project. The qualification required for the supervisors was passing of SSC and 10 years service experience. Anganwadi Sevikas were to appear for written examination of 100 marks and a list of selected candidates was to be prepared. 3. On 3/1/2000, the Zilla Parishad invited applications for selection of supervisors posts. Examination was conducted on 18/1/2000. Results were declared and eligible Anganwadi Sevikas were appointed as supervisors. 4. Writ Petition No.5335 of 2000 came to be filed by some candidates claiming that respondents 5 to 25 therein were wrongly appointed to the posts of supervisors because they had not fulfilled the criteria laid down by G.R. dated 5/1/1998. On 5/1/2000, the petitioners were called for interview by respondent 6 to fill the vacancies created by AJN 3 appointments of respondents 8 to 25 to the post supervisors. In October/November, 2000, respondent 6 appointed the petitioners as Anganwadi Sevikas in the posts which had fallen vacant, because of the appointments of respondents 8 to 25. 5. Writ Petition No.5335 of 2000 was decided on 30/9/2002. This court set aside the appointments of respondents 8 to 25 therein to the posts of supervisors. A direction was given to appoint the petitioners in Writ Petition No.5335 of 2000 as supervisors. On 31/12/2002, pursuant to the High Court’s order services of respondents 8 to 25 in Writ Petition No.5335 of 2000 were terminated by respondent 6. 6. On 10/3/2003, respondent 6 issued call letters and conducted tests and again issued appointment letters to respondents 8 to 25 in Writ Petition No.5335 of 2000. The said appointments were challenged in Writ Petition No.178 of 2004. By order dated 28/2/2004, the said writ petition AJN 4 was allowed and appointments of said 18 supervisors were cancelled. This court observed that these appointments were made to frustrate order dated 30/9/2002 passed in Writ Petition No.5335 of 2000. They were directed to be reverted to the posts of Anganwadi Sevikas. The petitioners were not parties to the said petition. 7. By order dated 21/7/2006, the petitioners’ services were terminated. The petitioners, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.6174 of 2006 being aggrieved by their removal. It appears that during the pendency of the said petition, some of the petitioners were appointed as supervisors. Those, who were not appointed, filed Writ Petition No.6174 of 2006 which was disposed of on 12/10/2006. While disposing of the said writ petition, this court observed that concededly, the post of supervisor had been filled in from the posts of Anganwadi Sevikas. This court expressed that in view of the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. However, the petitioners who have not been given fresh AJN 5 appointments so far, may make applications within two weeks for the post of Anganwadi Sevikas and the respondents shall take a a decision thereon within a period of four weeks thereafter. This court further observed that in case the petitioners fail, they would be at liberty to come to this court again. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners in Writ Petition No.6174 of 2006 made representations. Their representations were rejected and, hence, they filed Writ Petition No.1197 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 26/2/2007. This court observed that there were no vacancies in the concerned villages and, therefore, the petitioners could not be appointed. This court observed that in the event, there are any vacancies in the villages to which the petitioners therein belong, they may apply and their applications will be considered on their own merits. 9. The petitioners have thereafter made representations but they have not been appointed as Anganwadi Sevikas AJN 6 and, therefore, the petitioners have approached this court. The petitioners have challenged their order of termination dated 27/7/2008. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at some length, learned A.G.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7. 11. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed by Tukaram Rajaram Garale, Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Child Welfare) Satara Zilla Parishad, Satara. It is not possible for us to give any relief to the petitioners. All actions taken by the Zilla Parishad are pursuant to the orders passed by this court. The petitioners are attempting to challenge order of termination dated 27/7/2008 after a period of two years. Such a challenge cannot be entertained. It appears that out of the petitioners who had filed Writ Petition No.1197 of 2007, three have already been appointed. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, names of seven AJN 7 women are given and it is stated that the candidates at serial nos.1, 6 and 7 have already been appointed. Mr. Mehere learned counsel for respondent 6 and 7 states that as of today, there are 14 vacancies of Anganwadi Sevikas. He states that after the election is over, respondent 6 will advertise the said 14 posts of Anganwadi Sevikas and if the petitioners apply, they will be considered in accordance with law. This statement is accepted. 12. We must also note that Mr. Mehere, has stated that the present petitioners will get extra 10 marks as per rules for the services rendered by them and widows will be considered on priority basis. 13. In view of this, nothing survives in this petition. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [A.A. SAYED, J.]