Despite service of notice, nobody appears for the respondent Nos. 3 &
4.
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.4.2005
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in
Writ Petition No. 3305/2005 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by
respondent No.4 herein was allowed in part.
The State of Maharashtra issued an advertisement for appointment to
three posts of Anganwadi Sevika, Rohinkhed in the year 2003. An interview was
held on 20.7.2003. The appellant admittedly obtained the highest marks amongst
the candidates of Village Rohinkhed. However, as no order for sanction of the said
post was issued she was not appointed.
In the year 2004, another advertisement was issued for one post of
Agganwadi Sevika. Both the appellant and the private respondents applied for
appointment in the said post. In the interview held pursuant to the second
advertisement, respondent No.4 obtained more marks than the appellant.
It appears that two offers of appointment were issued on 30.6.2004; one
in terms of sanction letter dated 30.6.2004 appointing respondent No.3 herein as an
Anganwadi Sevika at Rohinkhed and another in terms of sanction letter dated
28.6.2004 appointing the appellant herein as Anganwadi Sevika in the Additional
Anganwadi Centre, Rohinkhed.
On the said basis and keeping in view the performance of the appellant in the
selection process held in the year 2003, another offer of appointment was issued in
favour of the appellant on 30.6.2004 itself.
The respondent No.4 filed a writ petition before the High Court
questioning the said order of appointment. By reason of the impugned judgment,
the High Court allowed the writ petition in part directing:
“In the result, writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. We
allow writ petition partly and quash and set aside the
appointment of respondent No.4 made to the post of Anganwadi
Sevika and we direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to fill in the post
of Anganwadi Sevika which has become vacant by issuing fresh
advertisement and after conidering the claims of all eligible
candidates.”
The High Court in arriving at the said decision opined that respondent
No.4 (writ petitioner in the High Court) had secured higher marks than the
appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the High Court
committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to
take into consideration that as the appointment of respondent No.3 as Anganwadi
Sevika, Rohinkhed was made in the regular post, the appointment of the appellant
herein was made for the additional Anganwadi Centre, Rohinkhed.
Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the offer of appointment
was issued in favour of respondent No.3 in terms of the sanction letter dated
30.6.2004, whereas the appellant has been appointed in terms of sanction letter
dated 28.6.2004.
If the order of sanction dated 28.6.2004 was passed on the basis of the
interview held pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2003, wherein the
appellant obtained the highest marks amongst the candidates of Village Rohinkhed,
we are of the opinion that respondent No.1 cannot be said to have committed any
error in issuing the offer of appointment in favour of the appellant in respect of the
additional Anganwadi Centre, Rohinkhed.
The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained and it is set
aside. The appellant's services has since been terminated. She may be reinstated in
service. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
(S.B. SINHA)