RUPALI Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N. R. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 3; Mr. D. M. Kale, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. S.S. Dhengale, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels for the rival parties.

(2.) The petition challenges the order dtd. 10/01/2018 passed by the respondent No.2/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) canceling the selection of the petitioner and declaring respondent no.4 as being duly selected for the post of Anganwadi Sevika of village Naya Akola and so also the order dtd. 17/12/2018 passed by the respondent No.1/Divisional Commissioner rejecting the appeal by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Khubalkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner raises two grounds: (1) that consequent to the fresh merit list published on 04/04/2013 (pg.70), in which the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 4 both had secured 67 marks, there was a foot-note, which stated that any objections to the list were to be raised by 10/04/2013 and the interviews were to be held on 15/04/2013. Since no objection was raised to this merit list by the respondent no.4 or anyone whomsoever and the petitioner had secured more number of marks in the interview than the respondent no. 4, her appointment as an Anganwadi Sevika by the order dtd. 18/07/2013 could not be faulted with. (2) by relying upon Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala and others Vs. Shivaji Bhagwat More and others (2011) 13 SCC 99 (para 26), it is contended that in this case by way of Government Resolution, dtd. 05/08/2010, Clause-5 thereof, an adjudicatory mechanism was created by permitting the CEO to decide the complaint filed regarding the selection of the candidate and such decision by the CEO was made subject to appeal before the Commissioner, which according to him, was not permissible and therefore, in case the challenge to the impugned order on merits failed, he contends that both the CEO as well as the Commissioner on account of what has been held in Shivaji More (supra) would not be clothed with the jurisdiction to decide any complaint or appeal. He, therefore, contends that the petition needs to be allowed.