Anita Vinayak Sangale v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:24124-DB 939-WP-9064-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 939 WRIT PETITION NO. 9064 OF 2025 ANITA VINAYAK SANGALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ....

Mr. R. A. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent No.1 - State Ms Rani R. Tandale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mr. N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.4 ....

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 10.09.2025 PER COURT :- 1.

In this Petition, while issuing notice on 23.07.2025, this Court took note of the fact that although there is an alternative remedy available to the Petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Divisional Commissioner in terms of the scheme recognized in a Government Resolution, the Petition deserves to be entertained for the reason that the Petitioner is alleging serious violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order has been admittedly passed behind the back of the Petitioner.

(( 2 )) 939-WP-9064-2025 2.

By the impugned order, the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Madatnis was cancelled on the basis of a complaint filed by Respondent No.4, alleging that the Petitioner is not a local resident and hence not eligible for being appointed on the said post.

3.

We find that a bare perusal of the impugned order itself shows that on the date of hearing i.e. 07.07.2025, only the concerned officers of Respondent Zilla Parishad and the complainant were heard and even notice was not issued to the Petitioner before passing such a drastic order, canceling her appointment. We find that this is a clear example of blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. As to whether the Petitioner has an explanation with regard to the allegation made against her is a different matter, but she ought to have been granted appropriate opportunity and principles of natural justice ought to have been followed before passing the impugned order.

4.

Since the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2 who passed the impugned order could not justify the violation of such fundamental principles of natural justice, we are inclined to allow this Petition only on the said ground.

(( 3 )) 939-WP-9064-2025 5.

Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.07.2025 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. 6.

The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.4 and other officers who were issued notices when the impugned order was passed, shall remain present before Respondent No.2 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, on 19.09.2025. The Respondent No.2 shall adhere to the principles of natural justice and give appropriate opportunity of hearing to all the parties and place their say on record and thereafter, pass a well reasoned order in the matter. The exercise be completed expeditiously and in any case within four weeks from 19.09.2025.

7.

Interim order granted by this Court, shall continue to operate during the pendency of the proceeding before Respondent No.2.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANISH PITALE, J. ] SMS