Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, 37 ladies working as Balwadi Sevikas in Shahapur and Murbad Talukas of Thane District, filed a writ petition seeking conversion of their services to Anganwadi Sevikas. They were aggrieved by the denial of such conversion based on a Government Resolution dated 9th February 2005, which was issued after an advertisement for Anganwadi Sevikas posts on 11th January 2005. The petitioners had appeared for interviews but were not appointed. The court considered whether the petitioners had a vested right to be converted under the earlier rules. The court held that the petitioners had no vested right to conversion and the subsequent Government Resolution was applicable to the pending selection process. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Conversion of Posts - Vested Right - Balwadi Sevikas to Anganwadi Sevikas - Government Resolution dated 9th February 2005 - The petitioners, 37 ladies working as Balwadi Sevikas, sought conversion to Anganwadi Sevikas based on an advertisement issued on 11th January 2005. A subsequent Government Resolution dated 9th February 2005 changed the criteria. The court held that the petitioners had no vested right to conversion and the subsequent resolution was applicable to the ongoing selection process. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who were working as Balwadi Sevikas, have a vested right to be converted to the posts of Anganwadi Sevikas based on an advertisement issued prior to a subsequent Government Resolution that changed the eligibility criteria.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court upheld the Government Resolution dated 9th February 2005 and held that the petitioners have no vested right to conversion.
Law Points
- Vested right
- Government Resolution
- policy change
- selection process
- conversion of posts
- Balwadi Sevikas
- Anganwadi Sevikas
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (07) 15
Writ Petition No.3762 of 2005
H.L. Gokhale, J.H. Bhatia
Ms. Jyoti Chavan for Petitioners, Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr. S.P. Thorat for Respondent Nos.4 and 5
Smt. Rajeshree Rajaram Ghude & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging denial of conversion from Balwadi Sevikas to Anganwadi Sevikas and challenging Government Resolution dated 9th February 2005.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought conversion of their services to Anganwadi Sevikas and quashing of Government Resolution dated 9th February 2005.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were denied appointment as Anganwadi Sevikas despite an advertisement issued on 11th January 2005, due to a subsequent Government Resolution dated 9th February 2005.
Previous Decisions
Division Bench of the High Court passed an order on 13th July 2005 directing respondents not to make any further appointments to the post of Anganwadi Sevikas in Murbad and Shahapur areas.
Issues
Whether the petitioners have a vested right to be converted to Anganwadi Sevikas based on the advertisement dated 11th January 2005?
Whether the Government Resolution dated 9th February 2005 is applicable to the selection process that began before its issuance?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were appointed prior to the Government Resolution and the earlier rules should apply.
Respondents argued that the Government Resolution dated 9th February 2005 changed the criteria and was applicable to the ongoing selection.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioners had no vested right to conversion to the posts of Anganwadi Sevikas. The subsequent Government Resolution dated 9th February 2005 was applicable to the selection process that was ongoing at the time of its issuance.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners, herein are 37 ladies who claim to be working at different villages in Shahapur and Murbad Talukas of Thane District for a number of years as Balwadi Sevikas.
The Petitioners are aggrieved by the denial of the Respondents to appoint them or to convert their services from those of Balwadi Sevikas into those of Anganwadi Sevikas.
It is submitted by Ms.Chavan, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, that inasmuch as the Petitioners were appointed prior to the said resolution under the rules existing earlier at the time when the advertisement was issued, the same will have to be looked into.
Procedural History
The petition was filed on 27th May 2005 after interviews were held in January/February 2005. On 13th July 2005, the Division Bench passed an interim order directing respondents not to make further appointments. Reply was filed on 23rd June 2006. The petition was heard and dismissed on 7th July 2006.
