16.12.cao681.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.O. NO.681/2011 IN M.C.A. ST. NO. 7708/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5802/2010 (D) (Smt. Sangita w/o Ravindra Bansode .vrs. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.U. Bhuyar, Advocate for applicant/petitioner, Mrs. K.S. Joshi, AGP for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. .......... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2011. Heard Shri S.U. Bhuyar, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. He states that delay of 64 days caused is inadvertent and for the reasons disclosed, the same needs to be condoned. Mrs. K.S. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4, is strongly opposing the prayer for condonation of delay. She points out that respondent no.2 has chosen not to appear and contest the matter. Even, according to her, there is no substance in the petition. Shri Bhuyar, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner agreed to convince the court on merit. 16.12.cao681.11.odt 2/3 We, therefore, condone the delay and for very same reasons, we grant prayers in M.C.A. St. No. 7708/2011. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.5802/2010 is restored back to file. Hence, Civil Application (O) No. 681/2011 and Miscellaneous Civil Application (Stamp) No.7708/2011 are allowed. Writ Petition No.5802/2010 Heard. The petitioner claims that she was selected for the post of Anganwadi Sevika in the year 2005. The petition is filed to direct respondent no.2 - Zilla Parishad to issue appointment order and accordingly the petition has been filed in the year 2010 i.e. almost after five years. The delay is sought to be explained by pointing out that the selection process was stayed by the then Chairman of Selection Committee and the said Chairman on 3.8.2009 directed appointment of the present petitioner. The date on which stay was granted by the said Chairman, the legal provisions under which he could grant that stay are not pointed out. The documents produced show that after the communication dated 3.8.2009, the matter has been taken up on 31.3.2010 and on the same day, the draft appointment order in favour of the petitioner was put up. The file was then processed and put up before the Deputy Chief Executive Officer on very same day. The Deputy Chief Executive 16.12.cao681.11.odt 3/3 Officer has on 19.4.2010 placed the file before the Chief Executive Officer. It appears that Chief Executive Officer, thereafter, has not taken any cognizance of the matter. We, therefore, find substance in the objections being raised by the learned AGP. The petitioner is not in a position to point out the life of select list and why this court should interfere in this situation after almost 5 to 6 years. We do not find any legal right of the petitioner being violated. The writ petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande