WP 904/11 & 16 others - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.904/2011 Latika w/o Hari Nagale & others. ...Petitioners... Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2552/2011 Meghrani Subhash Pawar & others. ...Petitioners.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents.. Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Smt.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.1582/2011 Trivena Bhimsen Satfale. ...Petitioner.. WP 904/11 & 16 others - 2 - Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2553/2011 Tai Vyankat Gatkal & others. ...Petitioners.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2554/2011 Kasturbai Dashrath Aswale. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.D. Godbharle, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WP 904/11 & 16 others - 3 - WRIT PETITION NO.2555/2011 Sunita Bandu Badure & others. ...Petitioners.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2556/2011 Chandrakala Mahadeo Bankar & others. ...Petitioners.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2557/2011 Nanda Dashrath Gavane & others. ...Petitioners... Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. WP 904/11 & 16 others - 4 - Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2558/2011 Shobha Sanjay Naikwade & others. ...Petitioners.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2559/2011 Varsha Anandrao Patil & others. ...Petitioners... Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2654/2011 Anita Sugriv Chorge & others. ...Petitioners.. WP 904/11 & 16 others - 5 - Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2856/2011 Nirmala Rachappa Khirapwar. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2857/2011 Meera Ramrao Chavan. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri B.A. Shinde, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WP 904/11 & 16 others - 6 - WRIT PETITION NO.2858/2011 Swati Baliram Sarwade & another. ...Petitioners.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & another. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2859/2011 Anita Rambhau Khatavkar & others. ...Petitioners.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri S.S. Dambe, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2860/2011 Surekha Pratap Shinde & others. ...Petitioners.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... WP 904/11 & 16 others - 7 - Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.2861/2011 Godaari Vithal Honsangve. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & another. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri S.S. Dambe, Advocate for respondent no.2. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE: 26.07.2011 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010 issued by the Woman & Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The petitioners have further prayed that they be declared eligible to be appointed on the post of Anganwadi Sevika / Anganwadi Madatnis by relaxing the conditions mentioned in the said resolution. WP 904/11 & 16 others - 8 - 3] In these writ petitions, except Writ Petition No.1582/2011, this Court, vide orders dated 30.3.2011 and 20.4.2011 passed the following interim order: “ Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. In this group of writ petitions, there are few petitions, which are coming for the first time on Board. In some petitions, we have already issued notices to respondents. All respondents are yet not served in these petitions. In the circumstances, we pass the following order: The writ petitions, in which we have so far not issued notices to respondents, we issue notices returnable on 22.6.2011. In addition to Court notice, petitioners to serve unserved respondents by Advocate’s notice, either personally or by courier / speed post / fax, and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. The petitions, in which respondents are yet not served, the petitioners are allowed to serve those respondents by private notice and file affidavit of service. In some petitions, we have passed interim orders. However, we are substituting all those orders by the following order: If the appointments in pursuance of the advertisements, challenged in these petitions, are made, all those appointments would be subject to outcome of these writ petitions and/or subject to further WP 904/11 & 16 others - 9 - directions / orders passed therein. The appointing authorities are directed to make this clear in the appointment letters issued to the selected candidates. It is open to all the respondents to file their reply affidavits, if they so desire, with an advance copy thereof to the Advocates for the petitioners. Liberty to apply for modification, if circumstances so demand. Office to issue authenticated copy of this order to the learned counsel for the parties on demand.” The ad interim order operates till this date. From bare perusal of the order, it is clear that appointments, if any, are made during pendency of these writ petitions and/or after the ad interim orders were passed, those appointments were made subject to outcome of these writ petitions. Insofar as Writ Petition No.1582/2011 is concerned, no such relief was granted. 4] Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, does not press the main prayer in these writ petitions whereby the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010 has been challenged. He further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the concerned authorities are directed to reconsider their claim on the basis of the first part of the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010. The first part of the Government resolution lays down the WP 904/11 & 16 others - 10 - conditions / criteria for “direct appointments” as Anganwadi Madatnis and Anganwadi Sevikas. The official translation of the relevant portion of the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010 concerning the direct appointments reads thus: “1] Direct Appointment :- A) Wherever in the States new Aanganwadis will be opened under the Central Government sponsored scheme namely Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, at such places, if Balwadis of Grampanchayat, Panchayat committee, Zilla Parishad, Municipal Corporation, Municipality and Cantonment Board, Social Welfare Department, Education Department, Central and State Social Welfare Advisory Board are functioning then such Balwadis should be closed and if Balwadi Teacher is 10th Standard passed then she should be given appointment directly to the honorarium – post namely 'Aanganwadi Sevika' in new Aanganwadi Centre. If she is not 10th Standard passed then such Balwadi Teacher should be given direct appointment as 'Aanganwadi Helper'. Under the said provision the Teachers of Balwadi Centre, being run by private and voluntary organisation (though it gets grant from any department), can not be considered for direct appointment as Aanganwadi Sevika/ Helper. B) If mini Aanganwadi Centre is converted into Aanganwadi Centre then Mini Aanganwadi Sevika, if she has passed minimum 10th Standard then she should be given direct appointment as 'Aanganwadi Sevika' and if she has not passed 10th Standard then she should be given direct appointment as a 'Helper'. C) If the post of Aanganwadi Sevika has fallen vacant and if the Helper working in the said Aanganwadi Centre is complying with the conditions of qualification, local residence and two years service/ WP 904/11 & 16 others - 11 - experience as a Helper then she should be given appointment directly as 'Aanganwadi Sevika'. From bare perusal of the first part of the resolution, it is clear that it covers and gives benefit to Balwadi teachers and mini Anganwadi Sevikas, who are already working in Balwadis and mini Anganwadis and who have passed 10th Std. Examination and are domicile / local residents. Insofar as helpers working in Anganwadis are concerned, if the post of Anganwadi Sevika falls vacant and if the helper working in the said Anganwadi centre complies with the condition of qualification (10th Std.), local residence, and two years service experience as a Helper, then she should be given appointment directly as Anganwadi Sevika. We have also perused the second part of the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010. That deals with appointments as Anganwadi Madatnis and Anganwadi Sevikas on the vacant posts by inviting applications under an advertisement. In other words, it deals with fresh appointments to be made by inviting applications under an advertisement. 5] Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the second part of the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010 is independent of the first part, which deals with direct appointments. The second part of the said Government resolution reads thus: WP 904/11 & 16 others - 12 - “2] Necessary Terms and Conditions for the Selection of Candidates by inviting applications :- After disposing of the cases of direct appointments, for the rest of the vacant posts, selection of the candidates should be made by inviting applications under an advertisement. For this purpose, the Terms and Conditions are fixed as follows. (A) Education Qualification :- For the post of Aanganwadi Sevika and Mini Aanganwadi Sevika of all the projects, minimum education qualification of 10th Standard passed and for Helper 7th Standard passed shall be necessary. (B) Condition of Domicile (to be local resident) :- For the posts of Aanganwadi Sevika, Mini Aanganwadi Sevika and Helper from the rural and tribal project, applications should be sort by an advertisement from female candidates only from the respective Grampanchayat area and as regards Urban Projects from the respective wards and then selection should be made. (C) Condition of age :- For direct appointment (by nomination) on the posts of Aanganwadi Sevika, Mini Aanganwadi Sevika and Helper, age limit shall be 25 to 35 years. However, the condition of maximum age limit of 35 years shall not be applicable for the direct appointments to be made as per the provisions under the aforesaid A), B) and C) of paragraph No. 1. (D) Small Family :- For the posts of Aanganwadi Sevika, Helper and Mini Aanganwadi Sevika, a condition of small family is made applicable. The same shall be applicable as follows. (1) Small family means husband and wife including two children. (2) While making application for the post on honorarium, the candidate appointed shall have to be given an affidavit in writing that she will not beget more than two issue. The same shall be in accordance with Appendix 'B'. WP 904/11 & 16 others - 13 - (3) On the date of implementation of the said rule or thereafter, if there is only child, in such case more than one child born in the subsequent single delivery then the same shall be deemed to be only one issue. Among the child/ issue, the child or children adopted will not be included.” The second part of the Government resolution prescribes four conditions, viz. (1) educational qualification (2) domicile (to be local residence) (3) age, and (4) small family, to mean that the person who does not have more than two children as contemplated in clause (d) of the second part of the resolution. Out of these four conditions, we do not find the conditions in respect of “age” and “small family” are made condition precedents for direct appointments as per the first part of the Government resolution. The first part, as observed earlier, deals with direct appointments of the existing Balwadi teachers, mini Anganwadi Sevikas and Helpers. In view thereof, in case of direct appointments of the Anganwadi Sevika and Anganwadi Madatnis, who are already working, the condition of the age and small family would not apply. Insofar as the condition in respect of the education and local residence are concerned, they will have to be fulfilled in case of direct appointments as contemplated by the first part of the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010. In view thereof, we dispose of these petitions by the following order: The concerned authorities shall consider the case of the petitioners, in all petitions, except Writ Petition No.1582/2011, afresh and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt WP 904/11 & 16 others - 14 - of this order. If the concerned authority, for any reason, finds that the person, who is already appointed either as Anganwadi Madatnis or Anganwadi Sevika at Anganwadi centres, where the petitioners are claiming their appointments, they shall grant an opportunity of hearing to all such Anganwadi Madatnis / Anganwadi Sevikas appointed after the interim orders dated 30.3.2011 and/or 20.4.2011 were passed and who are holding charge as of today. The concerned authority shall also grant an opportunity of hearing to other persons, if any, who are likely to be affected by this order. It is needless to mention that the claims of the petitioners shall be considered in the light of the observations made in this order in respect of the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010. If the concerned authority finds that the petitioner/s are not fulfilling the condition in respect of educational qualification, domicile / local residence and, in addition thereto, in case of helpers, the two years experience, their applications may be rejected outright and in that event, notice to others need not be issued. Similarly, this order will not apply to the teachers of Balwadi centres, being run by private / voluntary organisations, even if they get grants from any department of the Government. We make it clear that we are not issuing direction to appoint the petitioners. If the petitioners are found to be eligible for the post of Anganwadi Sevika / Madatnis, their claim may be considered on merits. In other words, if the person appointed is found to be more meritorious, it is open to the concerned authority to take appropriate WP 904/11 & 16 others - 15 - decision. These directions shall not apply to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1582/2011. If the petitioner in this petition is found to be eligible, her claim may be considered whenever there will be vacancy of the post of Anganwadi Sevika / Madatnis. With these directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.) ndk/c2671116