Bombay High Court
Smt Shakuntalabai Premlal Bawane vs The State Of Mah & Others on 1 March, 2018
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 WP.253.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 253 OF 2004
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 254 OF 2004
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 255 OF 2004
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2004.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 280 OF 2004
...........
1] WRIT PETITION NO. 253 OF 2004
Smt. Shakuntalabai Premlal Bawane,
Aged about 48 years,
Occ, Nil, R/o. Pindkepar, Post: Sukali,
Tah. Tirora, Dist. Gondia. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2] Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Gondia, Dist. Gondia.
3] Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme,
Office at Tirora, Dist. Gondia.
4] The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Tirora,
Dist. Gondia.
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2018 01:26:54 :::
2 WP.253.04
5] Smt. Indubai w/o Arun Shende
R/o. Pindkepar, Post. Sukali,
Taq. Tirora, Dist. Gondia.
6] Shri Bhajandas Vaidya,
Member of Legislative Assembly,
Tirora, Dist. Gondia. ...... RESPONDENTS.
With
2] WRIT PETITION NO. 254 OF 2004
Smt. Pawankala w/o Mohan Deogade,
Aged about 22 years,
Occ, Nil, R/o. Sindi-tola, Post -
Tah. Tirora, Dist. Gondia. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2] Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Gondia,
3] Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme,
Office at Tirora, Dist. Gondia.
4] The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Tirora,
Dist. Gondia.
5] Smt. Vandana w/o Everest Rahangdale,
R/o. Berdipar,
Taq. Tirora, Dist. Gondia.
6] Shri Bhajandas Vaidya,
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2018 01:26:54 :::
3 WP.253.04
Member, Legislative Assembly,
Tirora, Dist. Gondia. ...... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
3] WRIT PETITION NO. 255 OF 2004
Smt. Rekhabai w/o Umrao Shende,
Aged about 35 years,
Occ, Nil, R/o. Sindi-tola,
Tah. Tirora, Dist. Gondia. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2] Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Gondia, Dist. Gondia.
3] Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme Office
at Tirora, Dist. Gondia.
4] The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Tirora,
Dist. Gondia.
5] Smt. Vandana w/o Everest Rahangdale,
R/o. Berdipar,
Tah.. Tirora, Dist. Gondia.
6] Shri Bhajandas Vaidya,
Member, Legislative Assembly,
Tirora, Dist. Gondia. ...... RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2018 01:26:54 :::
4 WP.253.04
WITH
4] WRIT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2004
Smt. Anita w/o Manohar Vaidya,
Aged about 33 years,
Occ, Nil, R/o. Chandori (Khurd) Tola,
Post : Paraswada, Tq. Tirora,
Dist. Gondia. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2] Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Gondia, Dist. Gondia.
3] Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme Office
at Tirora, Dist. Gondia.
4] The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Tirora,
Dist. Gondia.
5] Smt. Anju w/o Rajesh Sakhare,
aged about - yrs.,
R/o. Chandori (Khurd) Tola,
Post-Paraswada, Tah. Tirora, Dist. Gondia.
6] Shri Bhajandas S/o Vithoba Vaidya,
M.L.A. Tirora, President Selection Committee,
R/o. Tirora Dist. Gondia. ...... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
5] WRIT PETITION NO. 280 OF 2004
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2018 01:26:54 :::
5 WP.253.04
Smt. Kuntabai wd/o Inaram Dhawade,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ, Nil, R/o. Arjuni, Post Paraswada
Tah. Tirora, Dist. Gondia. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2] Zilla Parishad, Gondia,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Gondia, Dist. Gondia.
3] Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme Office
at Tirora, Dist. Gondia.
4] The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Tirora,
Dist. Gondia.
5] Smt. Sandhya w/o Mahendra Bagade,
R/o. Arjuni, Post Paraswada,
Tah. Tirora, Dist. Gondia.
6] Shri Bhajandas Vaidya,
Member, Legislative Assembly,
Tirora, Dist. Gondia. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Shri I.N. Choudhary, Advocate for petitioners,
Shir A.R. Chutke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 3.
Mrs. M.P. Munshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 4,,
Shri G.G. Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 5.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 1, 2018.
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2018 01:26:54 :::
6 WP.253.04
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
, J.) 1] Heard Shri I.N. Choudhary, learned Advocate for petitioners, Shir A.R. Chutke, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 3, Mrs. M.P. Munshi, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 4 and Shri G.G. Mishra, learned Advocate for respondent No. 5. 2] Perused records. Petitioners question selection process of Anganwadi Madatnis at Anganwadi, Pindkepar, Tq. Tirora, Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 253/04 & 280/04 had applied for post of Anganwadi Madatnis and petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 25/04, 255/04 & 260/04 had applied for post of Anganwadi Sevika. It is not in dispute that the challenge raised by all petitioners is on same lines and identical. The selection process has been completed in the year 2004 and selected candidates have been appointed. 3] Effort of Mr. I.N. Choudhary, learned Counsel for petitioners, is to demonstrate that two responsible members out of total eight from selection committee then made a grievance and pointed out that the M.L.A. who was Chairman brought undue influence and marks were initially recorded by pencil. Those marks were then altered to manage selection of only favoured persons of ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2018 01:26:54 ::: 7 WP.253.04 M.L.A. Mr. Choudhary, learned Counsel for petitioners, adds that the marks allotted by other committee members are not made available for perusal of this Court. He has invited our attention to two charts to demonstrate that there are overwritings and erasers which prima facie substantiate the case of petitioners.
4] Respective Counsel for respondents strongly oppose the petition. They submit that petitioners have participated in selection process and after their failure to secure appointment, they have found it convenient to assail the process. According to them, grievance made by two members of Selection Committee is too general to deserve any credence. They also submit that alleged erasers or corrections do not show any material alteration so as to favour any particular candidate.
5] With the assistance of the respective Counsel, we have perused the papers. Grievance made by Sau. Ushatai Mende, a member of Selection Committee on 4.12.2003 is about interviews carried out on 3.12.2003. She mentions that M.L.A. Shri Vaidya gave primacy and precedence to his favoured candidates. To facilitate this exercise marks were initially given by using pencil and thereafter finalized in ink. Therefore, there is overwriting and erasers. ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2018 01:26:55 :::
8 WP.253.04 6] On 5.12.2013 another member Sau. Mayabai Patle also submitted some similar complaint. She mentions that M.L.A. did not give preference to widows or local residents and pencil was initially used. She has also stated that M.L.A. forced them to sign select list but they have not signed it.
7] Thus, grievance of Smt. Mayabai is about not giving precedence to widows or local residents while other lady member Smt. Mende has not made any such specific grievance. Smt. Mayabai also says that M.L.A. forced everybody to sign on select list while Smt. Mende does not point out any such pressure. Smt. Mayabai mentions that, therefore, they did not sign the papers while Smt. Mende does not point out her refusal or omission to sign. 8] In this backdrop, when charts in which marks are allotted are seen, it is apparent that their district heads for allotment of marks are mentioned and total marks available under each head are also specified. Thus, for a destitute or widow, total 15 marks are prescribed and not a single lady has been given a mark under this head in chart at page nos. 31 & 32. Similarly, for educational qualifications, for being local resident marks are already fixed and accordingly given to each candidate in said chart. At page 33 against ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2018 01:26:55 ::: 9 WP.253.04 name of Chaithen Kala Katre total marks given are 56, in photocopy last digit "6" appears to be overwritten but then considering fixed heads under which marks are already given to her, that has not materially affected the selection process. Same can be said about other instance pointed out by Mr. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Name of the other lady Indubai is just below name of Smt. Katre at page 33 of petition. There again she has been given marks under fixed heads. It appears that for general knowledge and experience, she has been given zero and for personality she has been given one mark out of ten. Her total of 56 marks is again due to her score under other heads where marks are already fixed. 9] The petitioners have approached this Court with a grievance of overwritings and erasers in selection process. They have to demonstrate how alleged overwritings or erasers have prejudicially affected their scores in the matter. The material looked into by members of Committee does not support grievance made by Smt. Mende or Smt. Patle.
10] In this situation, we find no case made out warranting intervention in exercise of writ jurisdiction. ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2018 01:26:55 :::
10 WP.253.04 11] Petitions are accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2018 01:26:55 :::