AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The present petition challenges the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in Case No.09/2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 08.02.2022, passed by the learned Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati was upheld. By the said orders, the termination of respondent No.4 and the consequential appointment of the petitioner dated 09.12.2021 were set aside and respondent No. 4 was permitted to continue as Anganwadi Sevika at Bhandum.
The brief facts necessary for the disposal of present petitions are that the petitioner and respondent No.4 had participated in the recruitment process conducted in 2013 for the post of Anganwadi Sevika at Bhandum pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2011, which specifically stated that, "Tyach Aanganwadi Kendratil Pad Rikta Asalyas", that is replaced and "Tyach Gavat Aanganwadi Sevikeche pad rikta Asalyas, Sarat Jestha Madatnisla thet niyukti denyat yavi". Though the petitioner was initially selected, the respondent No. 4 raised an objection on the ground of higher merit. By order dated 24.01.2014, the competent Authority accepted the objection and directed appointment of respondent No.4, subject to her residing at Bhandum. The petitioner's appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 21.04.2017 and the same attained finality and the respondent No. 4 thereafter continued in service.
In 2021, the respondent No.4 was called upon to furnish proof of residence at Bhandum, but she failed to prove and consequently she was relieved from service by order dated 23.11.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed by order dated 09.12.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No.4 challenged the said orders before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
By order dated 08.02.2022, the Chief Executive Officer allowed the appeal of Respondent No.4 on the basis of a spot inspection/panchanama recording her residence and belongings at Bhandum and set aside the dismissal order dated 23.11.2021 and petitioner's appointment order dated 09.12.2021 and restored respondent No.4 service, while granting her a final opportunity to comply with the residence requirement. Unsatisfied with the said order petitioner preferred appeal and the said appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 12.10.2022.
I have heard learned counsel for parties at length. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the authorities erred in restoring Respondent No.4 despite her being a resident of Borikheda and having failed to establish residence at Bhandum. The subsequent spot inspection, according to the Petitioner, could not cure the breach of the residence requirement under the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was appointed after respondent No.4 was relieved and, therefore, was entitled to continue on the post.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioner's challenge seeks to reopen an appointment which had attained finality in 2017. The respondent No.4 was eligible under the applicable residence condition, being a resident of Borikheda within the same Gram Panchayat. The competent Authorities, upon considering the spot inspection and material on record, found that respondent No.4 was residing at Bhandum. Such concurrent findings of fact do not warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 in the absence of perversity or material illegality.
It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 had rendered more than thirteen years of service and was relieved only on the allegation regarding her residence. The petitioner's appointment dated 09.12.2021 was itself unsustainable, having been made from the 2013 selection process after expiry of the select/waiting list. A subsequent vacancy could not revive an expired selection list or confer an indefeasible right of appointment upon the Petitioner. Reliance is placed upon Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, 2025 (2) SCC, State of Karnataka v. Santhosh Kumar C., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 458 and Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2023 SC 4986.
In view of the arguments canvased by the parties and records produced before this Court, I have perused the same. The facts which are more or less undisputed are mentioned supra. It is thus clear from those facts and as also can be seen from Page No.25 Annexure 3 that the respondent No.4 was awarded more marks than the petitioner. However, the petitioner was appointed only since there is no contact with the village of Bhandum te Borikheda in raily reason which are at a distance of about 10 Kms. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 was reinstated by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishat Amravati. The said reinstatement however was conditional on a condition that the respondent No.4 would reside at the village Bhandum.
In the backdrop of these facts, the Authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner in the Appeal has recorded a finding of fact that in a spot Panchanama being conducted, it was observed that the present respondent No.4 had some belongings and utensils at the Angandwadi Centre. It has, therefore, went on to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner.
As has been rightly pointed out by the Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 that even though the Government Resolution dated 15.7.2011 modifies para (1c)(d) expanding the scope for filling the vacant post from the said Angandwadi Centre to the said village, what is intact is clause (2)(b) of the original Government Resolution dated 5th August 2010. The said clause provides for a condition regarding the residence of the candidate concerned and contemplates that the said candidates should be resident of the Gram Panchayat region. It is an admitted position on record that the Bhandum Gram Panchayat consists of 6 villages, one of which is Borikheda.
Thus, the fact remains that in view of the said clause being intact, the respondent No.4 was eligible for being appointed, as she fulfilled the residential requirement prevailing at the time of her appointment. Taking cue from this fact, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 states that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of Tej Prakash, Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1, has held that rules of recruitment cannot be changed once the procedure has already commenced. He further places reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. Santosh Kumar reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 458 and submits that absence of a selected candidate cannot enlarge the statutory operation of the list. It is, therefore, his submission that the judgment of the Appellate and Revisional authorities are perfectly legal and valid.
I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 since it is admitted position on record that Clause (2)(b) was never changed or modified by the subsequent Government Resolution. It is, therefore, apparent that the respondent No.1 has not committed any error while deciding the appeal since the finding is based on material available on record, there is nothing wrong with the order of the Appellate Authority, which can be termed as perverse.
The petition is therefore misconceived and is liable to be rejected. The petition is rejected, rule is discharged.