1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1292 OF 2007. Sau. Kaushal Ganpatsing Ukey, aged about 27 years, R/o Chorkhumari, At Post - Bhondewada, Tq. Ramtek, District Nagpur. .... PETITIONER. ....Versus.... 1) State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Bombay-32, 2) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, 3) The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Ramtek, District Nagpur, 4) Kumari Ranjana Devidas Irpati Muknapur, Tq. Ramtek, District Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS. Mr. N.S. Wadiyalwar, Counsel for petitioner, Mr. A.M. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 & 3, Mr. V.B. Palorkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 2, Mr. S.U. Nemade, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM: A.P. LAVANDE & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 14, 2009. 2 JUDGMENT (PER PRASANNA B. VARALE , J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the appointment order dated 10.8.2006 of respondent no.4 Miss Ranjana Devidas Irpati to the post of Anganwadi Sevika at Chorkhumari Centre, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 3. The controversy involved in the matter is short. The basic ground of challenge to the appointment of respondent no.4 is that there is non-compliance of the essential condition. The brief facts which are undisputed are that, the respondent no.3, i.e. the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Ramtek, District Nagpur had issued an advertisement calling for the applications for the post of Anganwadi Sevika and Anganwadi Madatnis respectively at village Chorkhumari. In response to the advertisement, the applications were received. The petitioner was also one of the contesting candidates for the said post. The petitioner belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, submitted her application for the said post. By complying with the usual 3 formalities, the respondent no.3 by order dated 10.8.2006 issued appointments to 7 persons at various centres and respondent no.4 was appointed as Anganwadi Sevika at Chorkhumari Centre. 4. The public notice calling for the applications for the post of Anganwadi Sevika and Anganwadi Madatnis mentioned the list of documents to be submitted and the essential conditions for the said posts. The list of the said documents and the conditions are as follows :- 1)The applicant must be a local resident, 2)The educational qualification : Minimum Standard VIIIth Passed, 3)The certificate is to be annexed if the candidate is widow/divorcee, 4)If the candidate belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/VJNT/ OBC category candidate, certificate be annexed, 5)If the candidate is a member of Below Poverty Line Family, the requisite certificate be annexed, 6)If the candidate is having an experience of more than one year, the certificate be annexed, 7) If the candidate has completed the course of Anganwadi Sevika/ Balwadi Sevika, certificate be annexed, 8)The certificate showing age between 18 to 44 years. 4 5. By referring to these conditions, the learned Advocate for petitioner submitted that respondent no.4 is not a local candidate and as such not eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Sevika. It was further submitted that the respondent no.4 is a resident of Muknapur village and to substantiate his contentions, certain documents, namely, a certificate issued by the Police Patil, Muknapur dated 22.2.2006 is annexed to the petition as Annexure VII and the certificate issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dongri dated 27.8.2006 is annexed as Annexure VIII. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 19.5.2006 whereby the Government has issued certain guidelines for the appointment of Anganwadi Sevika and Madatnis. These guidelines include the condition that Anganwadi Sevika/Madatnis shall be the local resident and other conditions requiring educational qualifications, etc. By relying upon the said documents and the Government Resolution dated 19.5.2006. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of respondent no.4 is contrary to the guidelines and as such, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the respondent no.4 has filed the Written Submissions and also submitted that the contention 5 raised by the petitioner is not only misconceived but is also misleading. The learned Advocate submitted that the respondent no.4 is a resident of village Muknapur and she is from the 'Gond' community. He further submitted that the applications were invited for the post of Anganwadi Sevika at village Chorkhumari. The respondent no.4 is the resident of village Muknapur and she is a local resident as per the condition prescribed in the said application. He further submitted that village Muknapur is the part of Group Gram Panchayat, Dongri and as such, the respondent no.4 is to be considered as the local resident. He further submitted that the respondent no.4 has also better educational qualifications and has completed a course in Anganwadi Sevika and has obtained First Class. The certificate issued by Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik is annexed to the submissions at Annexure R-4. The learned Advocate submitted that the respondent no.4 is resident of village Muknapur and a certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dongri dated 30.8.2002 was submitted by respondent no.4. The certificate mentions that respondent no.4 Ranjana Irpati is resident of village Muknapur and she resides at village Muknapur in Ward No.2 at House No.1 right from her birth. The other documents such as the domicile certificate issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramtek is 6 also annexed as Annexure R-1 which mentions that respondent no.4 is a resident of Muknapur and she is born at Muknapur and is domiciled in the State of Maharashtra. A certificate dated 17.6.2002 is also issued by the Police Patil stating that respondent no.4 Ranjana Irpati is resident of village Muknapur and belongs to 'Gond' caste. The said certificate is annexed to the Written Submissions at Annexure R-3. 7. The learned Advocate for respondent no.4 further submitted that Muknapur is a village which comes under the Gram Panchayat, Dongri. The Group Gram Panchayat, Dongri consists of 3 villages, namely, Dongri, Muknapur and Chorkhumari. The Group Gram Panchayat Dongri is a Group Gram Panchayat consisting of 3 villages and Muknapur is one of them. The respondent no.4 is the local resident of Muknapur and as such, she complies with the condition of advertisement issued by respondent no.3. The learned Advocate further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, a village may comprise of a whole or part of revenue village or group of revenue villages and as such, it was submitted by the learned Advocate for respondent no.4 that the respondent no.4 is a local resident. 7 8. The learned Advocate for the respondent no.4 further submitted that the documents annexed to the petition by the petitioner to show that the respondent no.4 is not the local resident but resides at Ramtek, namely, the certificates issued by the Gramin Police Patil Muknapur and the Sarpanch, Dongri are of the latest period, i.e. dated 22.2.2006 & 27.8.2006, whereas the respondent no.4 has submitted the documents of her residence at Muknapur which are of the year 2002. The learned Advocate also submitted that as the petitioner could not successfully compete with the respondent no.4 who is complying with the conditions of the advertisement and is a better qualified candidate. The petitioner has produced documents procured after the selection of respondent no.4 and as such, is trying to mislead the Court. 9. The learned Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 3 submitted their written submissions. It was submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1 & 3 that the contention of petitioner that there is non- compliance of the Government Resolution dated 19.5.2006 is misconceived for the reason that the said advertisement was issued on 23.9.2005 and at the relevant time Government Resolution dated 9.2.2005 was in force. It was further submitted that as per Government 8 Resolution dated 9.2.2005 and more particularly as per Clause No.7, the person to be appointed to the post of Anganwadi Sevika/Madatnis shall be a local resident. It was further submitted that respondent no.4 has submitted the documents to show that she is resident of village Muknapur and also documents showing that she belongs to 'Gond' community. It was further submitted that while assessing the candidates it was found that the respondent no.4 was having better academic qualifications and has obtained more marks at the academic level than the petitioner. It was further submitted that the respondent no.3 has published a list of selected candidates on the notice board on 18.2.2006. The respondent no.4 has joined the services and is also performing her duty at Chorkhumari centre to the satisfaction of the authorities to the best of her ability. A certificate issued by respondent no.3 is also annexed to the submission as Annexure No.9. It was further submitted that though the list of selected candidate was published on the notice board on 18.2.2006 and though the respondent no.4 has joined the services on 16.8.2006, the petitioner has kept mum for a period of nearly six months and thereafter approached this Court. There is no explanation for this delay by the petitioner. The learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 has submitted that respondent no.4 is equipped with the basic training of the Anganwadi 9 Sevika as she has undergone the course for the Anganwadi Sevika conducted by Ekatmik Bal Vikas Seva Yojana and a certificate to that effect issued by the Principal of Anganwadi Prashikshan Kendra, Lonala was also submitted and as such, the respondent no.4 was a candidate having an experience. 10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. We find considerable merit in the stand taken by respondent no.4 that she is a resident of Muknapur village which is a part of Group Gram Panchayat, Dongri. Since in terms of Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, a 'village' includes a group of villages and since respondent no.4 was a candidate having better experience and better academic qualifications at her credit, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 appointing respondent no.4 as the Anganwadi Sevika. In our opinion, the respondent no.4 satisfied the essential conditions required for the post of Anganwadi Sevika. It is also not in dispute that the respondent no.4 has joined the services at Chorkhumari Project as Anganwadi Sevika and she is performing her duty to the best of her ability and there is no complaint about the services of respondent no.4. We, therefore, find no merit in the 10 petition. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs. JUDGE. JUDGE. J.