1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.8293 of 2006 W I T H Writ Petition No.1130 of 2007 ---- Writ Petition No.8293 of 2006 Maharashtra Rajya Anganwadi Karmachari Sangh ... ... Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents Mrs.Neeta Karnik for petitioners Mrs.M.P.Thakur, AGP for respondents. ----- W I T H Writ Petition No.1130 of 2007 Rukmini Mallappa Patil & ors. ... ... Petitioners v/s. The Commissioner, Ikatmik Bal Vikas Seva Scheme & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Ramesh Dube Patil i/by M/s.Jay and Co. for petitioners. Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for respondents. ----- CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 12 th February 2008 P.C. : 2 1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common order because the facts and contentions raised in both these petitions are similar. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.8293 of 2006 is a registered Union which has been espousing cause of Anganwadi employees. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1130 of 2007 are working as Anganwadi Sevikas in the Anganwadi situate in Sangli urban area. 2. In short, the grievance made in this petition is that appointments to the post of Anganwadi Supervisor have not been made in accordance with the Government Resolutions. There is a total lack of transparency and hence, it is necessary to set aside the entire exercise and call the petitioners for interviews. 3. We have heard Mrs.Karnik, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.8293 of 2006. She contended that on 4.3.2005, the Government of Maharashtra issued a resolution prescribing the revised procedure for holding the examinations and evaluation for the purposes of filling up 50% of the total posts of Supervisors (Head Sevika) 3 sanctioned in the Integrated Child Development Scheme from the eligible (Matriculate) Angansevikas who have been working as Angansevikas for ten years on honorarium. This Government Resolution, inter alia, laid down that objective type written examination of 75 marks should be taken. Learned counsel submitted that members of the petitioner- Union so also the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1130 of 2007 appeared for the written examination. Written examination took place on 8.10.2006. According to Mrs.Karnik, as per Government Resolution dated 4.3.2005, a merit list had to be published and it had to be put on website for public information. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents failed to do so. Thereafter Notification dated 18.10.2005 was published. This notification speaks about written examination. The grievance of the petitioners is that without following due procedure, letters were issued to certain candidates calling them for oral examinations to be held on 13.12.2006, 14.12.2006 and 15.12.2006 and these call letters were 4 personally served on those candidates. Subsequently they were selected and names of the selected candidates were put on website on 8.12.2006. It is contended that there is a serious breach of procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1130 of 2007 adopted the arguments of Mrs.Karnik. 4. On the last occasion, we had directed learned AGP to give inspection of the entire record to learned counsel for the petitioners. We are informed that accordingly inspection has been given. Mrs.Karnik, however, disputes that she was given inspection of the merit list. Learned AGP contended that inspection of certain documents was demanded. The petitioners' counsel was given inspection of those documents. 5. Affidavit- in-reply is filed in both the petitions by one Mr.Trimbak R. Darade, Deputy Commissioner (Establishment), Integrated Child Development Services, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra State. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.8293 of 2006 are 5 material and, therefore, need to be quoted. They read as under:- “ 3. I say that Women and Child Development Department had issued a Government Resolution dated 2 nd January, 2002, to fill up 50% Posts of Supervisor in Integrated Child Development Services from “Anganwadi Sevika”. I say that in the said Government Resolution dated 2nd January, 2002, it is mentioned that Anganwadi Sevikas who are having 10 years experience as Anganwadi Sevikas and having age not more than 55 years, are eligible to be recruited as Supervisor in Integrated Child Development Services. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the said Government Resolution dated 2 nd January, 2002. Thereafter, the Women and Child Development, Mantralaya issued another Government Resolution dated 4th March, 2005, which is annexed as Exhibit A to the Writ Petition stating the procedure for filling up post of Supervisor in Integrated Child Development Services. I say that since, there were no Recruitment Rules prescribed for filling up the post of Supervisor in Integrated Child Development Services, till October, 2005, by Notification dated 18 th October, 2005, the Women and Child Development Department published Recruitment Rules and more particularly para 7 of the said Government Notification deals with Appointment to the Post of Mukhyasevika, Group C. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the said Government Notification dated 18 th October, 2005. 4. I say that thereafter by letter dated 21 st September, 2006, Under Secretary to Government, Women and Child Development Department, Mantralaya informed to the Deputy Commissioner, Integrated Child Development Services that all earlier 6 Notifications regarding Rules for recruitment of Supervisors, have been cancelled as the Government of Maharashtra has issued the Government Notification dated 18 th October, 2005. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 3 is a copy of the said letter dated 21 st September, 2006, issued by the Women and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. I say that the Commissioner, Integrated Child Development Services, fixed a programme in order to complete the process of Recruitment in their Department. As per the said programme, the concerned Department has to prepare a Merit List of the Candidates, who appeared for Written Examination and for One Post three candidates from the Merit List would be called for an Oral Interview. Thus the ratio of 1 : 3 is to be maintained for Oral Interview. After conducting Oral interview, Selection List would be published on Notice Board and the same would be available on Web Site. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 4 is a copy of the Recruitment Programme fixed by the Commissioner. I say that in the present case 80 vacancies of Supervisors were to be filled in Integrated Child Development Services. I say that about 1249 Anganwadi Sevikas appeared in the Written Examination for the post of Supervisor. I say that as there were only 80 posts of Supervisors, therefore, the ratio of 1 : 3 was applied for oral interview from the Candidates of Merit List and 247 candidates from the merit list were called for the Oral interview. 5. I say that the recruitment for Supervisor of the Respondent No.1 was restricted to the Anganwadi Sevikas, who are working in various Anganwadi Centers of Integrated Child Development Services. Call letters for oral interview were served on the Anganwadi Sevikas who were in the merit list. “ 7 6. In his affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.1130 of 2007, Mr.Darade has stated that the result of the written examination was displayed on Notice Board of the office and was put on website for information of public on 5th December 2006. 7. From the affidavits of Mr.Darade, it appears that the Government had cancelled all earlier notifications regarding rules for supervisors and had issued notification dated 18.10.2005. Thereafter a programme was fixed for completing the process of recruitment. As per this programme merit list had to be prepared of the candidates who had appeared for written examination. Accordingly, results of candidates who had appeared for written examination were displayed on notice board of the office and were put on website for information of public on 5.12.2006. Thus it is not correct that merit list was not prepared. Thereafter for one post three persons were called for interview from the said list. After interview select list had to 8 be published on notice board and put on website. We find that this procedure has been sufficiently complied with. 8. We have carefully perused the merit list and we find that it is in order. We record the statement made by learned AGP on instructions from Dr.M.S.Molwase, Deputy Commissioner, Health & Nutrition, that the merit list was, in fact, put on website on 5.12.2006. We have no reason to disbelieve this statement. 9. Mrs.Karnik drew our attention to the annexure to the affidavit filed by Mr.Darade, which says that 20 days after preparation of the merit list, actual interview programme has to be prepared. She submitted that if the merit list was put on website on 5.12.2006, then the interviews could not have been held on 13.12.2006, 14.12.2006 and 15.12.2006. Letters for interviews could not have been issued on 7.12.2006. Assuming that time limit of 20 days was not abided by strictly, that does not vitiate the entire procedure. Having carefully perused the merit list and having read the affidavits, we are of the opinion that the allegations made by 9 the petitioners are baseless. There is no lack of transparency. We find that there is sufficient compliance with the procedure. We find no substance in the petitions and they are, therefore, rejected. (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)