{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5628 OF 2009 Lata Chandrakant Jadhav & others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5685 OF 2009 Mahadevi Ganesh Mathpati & others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.M.R.Jamdade, Advocate for petitioners Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent / State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 6th October 2009 PER COURT: 1. Since both these petitions raise common question, these petitions are being decided by this common order. {2} 2. Petitioners in writ petition No.5628/2009 claim to have been appointed on 25.05.2009 as Anganwadi Sevika while the petitioners in writ petition No.5685/2009 claim to have been appointed as Anganwadi Madatnis on 25.05.2009. By a common order dated 23.07.2009, the services of the petitioners, in both these petitions, came to be terminated. The reasons which are ascribed by the respondents are that on an inquiry being conducted in respect of the appointment of the petitioners it transpired that there were serious irregularities in their appointments, which had ultimately vitiated the entire selection process. The petitioners have been appointed on temporary basis and are only paid honorarium in respect of the posts on which they were appointed i.e. Anganwadi Sevika / Anganwadi Madatnis. The terms of the appointment order clearly state that their appointments are temporary in nature and are liable to be terminated any time without assigning any reason. 3. On notice of these petitions being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply it is stated that on account of the compliant of one Smt.Anusaya Khedkar, MLA of Nanded, who was also the Chair Person of the Angawadi Sevika / Madatnis selection committee, an inquiry came to be conducted. The respondents have annexed, to their reply, copy of the report. Perusal of the report discloses several irregularities being committed in the appointment of the petitioners and others who have been {3} appointed as Angawadi Sevika/Madatnis. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners, in both the petitions, has urged before us that the petitioners have been appointed after observing the procedure prescribed by law and even if some irregularities were noticed in the appointment of some, that would not necessarily entitle the respondents to cancel the entire selection process. It is, therefore, stated that the action, as taken by the respondents, of canceling the entire selection process, is arbitrary exercise and, therefore, unsustainable in law. The learned AGP, on the basis of the report of the Committee, which had inquired into the complaint, has pointed out to us that serious irregularities have been found and in fact the Child Development Project Officer, Project No.2, who was involved in the selection process, has been suspended. It is also stated before us that the respondent No.2 has directed respondent No.3 to initiate fresh selection process of Anganwadi Sevika/Madatnis by an order dated 12.08.2009 and accordingly the process has been initiated and an advertisement has been published in daily “Lokpatra” and daily “Shramik Ekjoot” on 30.08.2009. It is stated that the process of recruitment afresh has already been initiated. 5. With the assistance of learned AGP we have perused the findings recorded by the committee which had investigated into the compliant. On such perusal we find that serious irregularities are alleged to have been committed in the selection process. The {4} magnitude of the irregularities is such that the entire selection process would stand vitiated. In any event the petitioners have not been appointed substantively and not on salary but they were paid an honorarium and their appointments were on temporary basis. The petitioners have no right to question the exercise undertaken by the respondents, of canceling the entire selection process. We do not notice any irregularity in the action of the respondents in canceling the entire selection process, as serious irregularities are alleged. In any event, the selection process has commenced afresh by issuance of advertisement in local newspapers and the petitioners, if eligible, can apply in response to the said advertisement. 6. In the light of what has been held by us above, we do not find any merit in the petitions and the petitions are, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5628-09