Bombay High CourtWP/2114/1998dispossed offdismiss for default

Anganwadi Balwadi Karmachari Union And 21 Others v. The Chief Exec.Officer, Z.P., Akola And One Other

2015-01-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.P. Bhangale2 pages

2201wp2114.98.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2114/1998 Anganwadi Balwadi Karmachari Union (ITUC) through its President Smt. Surekha Thakare and others ...Versus...

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola Tahsil and Distt. Akola and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. Indira Bodade & Shri G.G. Mishra, Advocates for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

DATE : 22.01.2015 P.C.

Nobody appears for the petitioners. Heard Advocate Shri Mishra for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

Learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has taken us through the prayer clauses as also the orders of this Court dated 13.6.2000 and 3.4.2002. Twenty two petitioners are before this Court with a prayer that they should be treated as selected and appointed as Anganwadi Sevikas/Anganwadi Assistants from the date of illegal appointments made by the respondent nos.1 and 2. The persons who are appointed illegally allegedly are not parties before this Court.

2201wp2114.98.odt On 13.6.2000, while issuing Rule in the matter, this Court directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioners for appointment. This order was later on clarified on 3.4.2002 and this consideration was ordered subject to eligibility of the petitioners.

Advocate Shri Mishra states that even on 3.4.2002 the petitioners were not found eligible.

It is apparent that the challenge does not survive. The writ petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar