Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chhaya Vasantrao Shinde, challenged the judgment and order dated 07.01.2015 of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad (Respondent No.2), which had allowed the appeal of Respondent No.5, Sheela Bhanudasrao Chapke, and set aside the order of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani (Respondent No.3) dated 02.08.2014. The Chief Executive Officer had cancelled the appointment of Respondent No.5 as Anganwadi Sevika for village Mategaon and appointed the petitioner in her place. Both the petitioner and Respondent No.5 had applied for the post pursuant to a proclamation dated 09.12.2013. Respondent No.5 was initially selected with a total of 72.10 marks (63.60 in the first round and 8.50 in interview), while the petitioner secured 69.83 marks (65.33 in first round and 4.50 in interview). The petitioner challenged the appointment within limitation, contending that Respondent No.5 had not produced an experience certificate along with her application form. The Chief Executive Officer found that Respondent No.5 had been awarded 3 out of 4 marks for experience based on a certificate dated 26.06.2012 from Bhartiya Mahila Vikash Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, a private institution, which was not recognized under Government Resolutions dated 05.08.2010 and 15.09.2011. Consequently, the appointment was quashed and the petitioner was appointed. Respondent No.5 appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who reversed the order without considering the Government Resolutions and the nature of the certificate. The High Court held that the appellate authority must consider all relevant material and cannot ignore the findings of the lower authority. The order of the Divisional Commissioner was set aside and the order of the Chief Executive Officer was restored. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Anganwadi Sevika Appointment - Experience Marks - Government Resolution dated 15.09.2011 - The issue pertained to the validity of experience marks awarded to a candidate based on a certificate from a private institution. The Chief Executive Officer had cancelled the appointment holding that the certificate was not recognized. The Divisional Commissioner reversed this order without considering the Government Resolutions. The High Court held that the appellate authority must consider all relevant material and cannot ignore the findings of the lower authority. The order of the Divisional Commissioner was set aside and the order of the Chief Executive Officer was restored. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Appellate Authority - Scope of Appeal - The appellate authority must independently assess the evidence and cannot merely substitute its own opinion without addressing the reasoning of the lower authority. The High Court held that the Divisional Commissioner failed to consider the Government Resolutions and the nature of the certificate, thus the order was perverse and liable to be set aside. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Divisional Commissioner, as appellate authority, was justified in reversing the order of the Chief Executive Officer cancelling the appointment of Respondent No.5 as Anganwadi Sevika, without considering the Government Resolutions and the fact that the experience certificate produced was from a private institution.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2015 passed by Respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner is quashed and set aside. The order dated 02.08.2014 passed by Respondent No.3 Chief Executive Officer is restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Experience marks for Anganwadi Sevika appointment must be based on certificates recognized under Government Resolutions
- private institution certificates not valid
- appellate authority must consider all relevant material and not ignore findings of lower authority
