SUNITA LAHU PANCHPANDE Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of Sunita Lahu Panchpande [appellant]. She takes exception to a judgment and order dtd. 7/8/2017 [impugned judgment] of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay [High Court]. The High Court allowed a writ petition [Writ Petition No. 5740 of 2014] presented by Gitanjali Sudhakar Shirsat [writ petitioner/sixth respondent] and while granting relief to her, set aside the appointment of the appellant as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik District, directed the State of Maharashtra to appoint the writ petitioner, the sixth respondent in this appeal, as an Anganwadi Supervisor in place of the appellant and observed that the appellant may be accommodated as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the writ petition of the sixth respondent are not too complicated. Appellant had been working as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon district since February 1992. An advertisement was published by Zilla Parishad, Nashik dtd. 18/4/2013 [advertisement], calling for applications for various posts, including that of an Anganwadi Supervisor. The advertisement stipulated the qualifications the aspirants were required to possess. Inter alia, it was required that an applicant must have work experience of 10 (ten) years or more as an Anganwadi Sevika. One of the 8 (eight) important instructions forming part of the advertisement was to the effect that "(O)nly Anganwadi Sevikes currently working in Tribal/Rural projects under Integrated Child Development Services Scheme in Nashik District can apply for the said post ". Appellant, though having never worked in any project in Nashik district but having work experience of more than 10 (ten) years in Jalgaon district applied for the said post, was selected and placed at No. 1 on the waiting list for appointment on one of the 3 (three) vacancies reserved for the OBC category, out of 13 vacancies in all. One, Lata Sanjay Kadam, was appointed on 29/7/2013; however, sometime later, she was found not qualified/eligible for the post leading to cancellation of her appointment. Appellant ultimately came to be appointed on the vacancy created by cancellation of appointment of the said Lata Sanjay Kadam, on 4/3/2014.

(3.) The sixth respondent, who otherwise was fully qualified in terms of the advertisement, figured at the second position of the waiting list. Finding that the appellant had been appointed, though she was not eligible, the sixth respondent submitted a representation to the official respondents on 9/4/2014 challenging the appointment of the appellant. Such representation was not considered. Aggrieved by the appointment of the appellant and consequent exclusion of her candidature, the sixth respondent successfully challenged the validity of the appointment of the appellant in the writ petition. The High Court recorded its satisfaction that having regard to the terms of the advertisement and a Government Resolution dated 17th November, 20017, the appellant was ineligible due to her acquiring experience in a district other than Nashik district. Notwithstanding that the appellant had not withheld any information, the fault being clearly of the appointing authority, and that she had continued as Anganwadi Supervisor without any blemish for 3 (three) years, it was held that the appellant was ineligible and, therefore, had to make way for the next wait-listed candidate, i.e., the writ petitioner. The High Court 's directions/observation, noted at the commencement of this judgment, have left the appellant seriously discontented.