Lata Vs. Chief
Executive Officer & Ors.  INSC 1464 (29 August 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIIL APPEAL NO. 5323 OF 2008 (Arising
out of SLP(C)No.18954 OF 2005) LATA ... APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS:
Despite service of
notice, nobody appears for the respondent Nos. 3 &
This appeal is
directed against the judgment and order dated 11.4.2005 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in Writ Petition No. 3305/2005
whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 herein was
allowed in part.
The State of
Maharashtra issued an advertisement for appointment to three posts of Anganwadi
Sevika, Rohinkhed in the year 2003. An interview was held on 20.7.2003. The
appellant admittedly obtained the highest marks amongst the candidates of
Village Rohinkhed. However, as no order for sanction of the said post was
issued she was not appointed.
2 In the year 2004,
another advertisement was issued for one post of Agganwadi Sevika. Both the
appellant and the private respondents applied for appointment in the said post.
In the interview held pursuant to the second advertisement, respondent No.4
obtained more marks than the appellant.
It appears that two
offers of appointment were issued on 30.6.2004; one in terms of sanction letter
dated 30.6.2004 appointing respondent No.3 herein as an Anganwadi Sevika at
Rohinkhed and another in terms of sanction letter dated 28.6.2004 appointing
the appellant herein as Anganwadi Sevika in the Additional Anganwadi Centre,
On the said basis and
keeping in view the performance of the appellant in the selection process held
in the year 2003, another offer of appointment was issued in favour of the
appellant on 30.6.2004 itself.
The respondent No.4
filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning the said order of
appointment. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the
writ petition in part directing:
"In the result,
writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. We allow writ petition partly and
quash and set aside the appointment of respondent No.4 made to the post of
Anganwadi Sevika and we direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to fill in the post of
Anganwadi Sevika which has become vacant by issuing fresh advertisement and
after conidering the claims of all eligible 3 candidates."
The High Court in
arriving at the said decision opined that respondent No.4 (writ petitioner in
the High Court) had secured higher marks than the appellant. Learned counsel
for the appellant would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in
passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration
that as the appointment of respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Sevika, Rohinkhed was
made in the regular post, the appointment of the appellant herein was made for
the additional Anganwadi Centre, Rohinkhed.
Our attention was
also drawn to the fact that the offer of appointment was issued in favour of
respondent No.3 in terms of the sanction letter dated 30.6.2004, whereas the
appellant has been appointed in terms of sanction letter dated 28.6.2004.
If the order of
sanction dated 28.6.2004 was passed on the basis of the interview held pursuant
to the advertisement issued in the year 2003, wherein the appellant obtained
the highest marks amongst the candidates of Village Rohinkhed, we are of the
opinion that respondent No.1 cannot be said to have committed any error in
issuing the offer of appointment in favour of the appellant in respect of the
additional Anganwadi Centre, Rohinkhed.
judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained and it is set aside. The appellant's
services has since been terminated. She may be reinstated in 4 service. The
appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.