Bombay High CourtWP/3782/2014dispossed offdismiss for default

Shobha Patru Madavi v. Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli Through, Its Chief Executive Officer And 3 Other

2016-07-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq3 pages

1 wp3782.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.3782 OF 2014 (Shobha Patru Madavi ..vs.. Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 26-07-2016 Heard Mrs. (Dr.) R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Jayant Mokadam, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri A.D. Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.3.

None appears for the respondent No.4.

The petitioner was selected and appointed as Madatnis at the Anganwadi Center. The respondent No.4 challenged the selection and appointment of the petitioner. The subordinate authorities found that the petitioner was wrongly given marks for possessing experience and those marks were deleted. After deletion of marks given to the petitioner for experience, she went below in the list and as the respondent No.4 was the next candidate in the merit list, the authorities directed that the respondent No.4 be given the appointment. The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that her appointment is cancelled without giving her proper opportunity to defend and without hearing her.

2 wp3782.14 The petitioner relies on the certificate issued by the Head Master of Zilla Parishad, Primary School on 2012-2006 to contend that she is having the required experience and the marks which were given at the time of interview for experience were properly given. 3.

The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has argued that the experience certificate was not submitted by the petitioner alongwith the application and there was nothing before the Interview Committee on the basis of which the marks for experience could have been given to the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to counter the above submission.

In the above facts, it cannot be said that the impugned orders passed by the authorities cancelling the selection and appointment of the petitioner suffer from any illegality.

I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE adgokar

3 wp3782.14 CERTIFICATE I certify that this Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Order.

Uploaded by : P.M. Adgokar.

Uploaded on : 28-07-2016.

P.A. to Hon'ble Judge.