1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1473 OF 2008 (ANUSAYABAI YESHWANTRAO DOMLE Vs COMMISSIONER INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICE SCHEME & OTH.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : JULY 22, 2008. 1. Heard Shri P.N. Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 and Shri Kapgate, learned counsel for Respondents No.2 & 3. 2. In the instant case, the petitioner is challenging order of termination dated 11.04.2008, issued by respondent, which is based on the communication dated 19.03.2008, issued by the Commissioner, Integrated Child Development Scheme- respondent No.1. 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have undertaken exercise of filling up of various posts of Anganwadi Sevikas in Gondia district. There was a Selection Committee constituted for the said purpose, which was consisted of eight members, headed by local M.L.A. It is further contended that so far as the petitioner is concerned, she appeared before the Committee, the Committee selected her, issued order of appointment, however, on the basis of the letter issued by respondent No.1 the selection process was cancelled and the services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide order dated 11.04.2008. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned respective counsel. 5. In the instant case following facts are not in dispute: The Selection committee consisted of eight members, one of them was Smt. Usha Suresh Harshe. Mrs. Usha Harshe is closely related to the petitioner i.e. sister in law of the petitioner. 3 6. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that Smt. Usha, being very close relative of the petitioner and was the member of the Selection Committee influenced the decision making process of the Committee and, therefore, the selection of the petitioner is bad in law. It is further contended that the petitioner has received 20 out of 20 marks in the process of interview which is otherwise unlikely. It is, therefore, contended that the selection of the petitioner was bad in law, consequently the order of appointment issued also could not be sustained in law and, therefore, the action taken by the respondent is sustainable in law. 6. Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, so far as ground of relationship is concerned, this has come for the first time before this Court and was not the basis for cancellation of selection process of some of the candidates, including the petitioner. It is contended that the main ground, on which the selection of some of the candidates 4 was cancelled, was irregularity as well as illegality noticed by the authorities in the process of selection. It is, therefore, contended that the relationship not being the ground for cancellation of selection process, may not be considered by this Court, since it is for the first time raised before this Court. 7. So far as relationship between the petitioner and Smt. Usha Harshe is concerned, the petitioner has not disputed that Smt. Usha Harshe is sister in law of the petitioner. We must express that the process of selection must be just, fair and transparent. It is also well settled that if the member of the Selection Committee is related to the candidate, who is to be selected by the Committee, such member must withdraw from the Committee. In the instant case, member of the Selection Committee i.e. Smt. Usha Harshe, being close relative of the petitioner, influencing the minds of other members of the Committee while selecting the petitioner cannot be ruled out, therefore, the action of the respondent, in such situation, cannot be held to be bad in law. 5 8. It is no doubt true that the reasons given in the order of termination must be adequate to substantiate the action of termination and it is impermissible to supplement the reasons by filing affidavit in the Court. However, in the instant case, the petitioner being close relative of the members of the Selection Committee, it is difficult for us to rule out the aspect of other members being influenced by Smt. Usha Suresh Harshe in respect of the selection of the petitioner. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RR.