Bombay High CourtWP/6148/2015dismissedrule discharged

Vaishali W/O. Nandkishor Meshram v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara And Others

2015-12-02Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.B. Varale2 pages

0212wp6148.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6148/2015 Vaishali w/o Nandkishor Meshram ...Versus...

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, Distt. Bhandara and others --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.

DATE : 02.12.2015 By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Mohadi dated 3.9.2015, terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that a third child was begotten to the petitioner after the cut off date on 15.12.2014. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination of her services as an Anganwadi Sevika on the said ground.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not dispute that the third child was begotten to the petitioner after the cut off date on 15.12.2014. According to the petitioner, her services could not have been terminated as one of her child was given in adoption.

Since the petitioner admits that a third child was begotten to the petitioner after the cut off date on 15.12.2014, we

0212wp6148.15.odt do not find any fault in the action of the respondent - Project Officer in terminating the services of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Sevika. It appears that just before a third child was begotten to the petitioner on 15.12.2014, the petitioner gave one of her child in adoption on 17.10.2014.

Since there is no illegality in the impugned order, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar