S IJBHtAMAN GALA, D/0 MARERPA v. TI lB STATE OF’ KAPiNATAMA, BY ITS SECRETARY, WOYI’N 3
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
AccordIngly, the writ petition Is allowed
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Nos. 1 AccordIngly, the writ petition Is allowed. Respondent to 4 are directed to take necessary steps to immediately issue appointment order to petitioner herein, pursuant list prepared by them vide to provisional Armexure - ‘E” dated 25.09.20 10. In addition to this, this…
Judgment
ORDER F’ ‘m V ) (s( hr ip Ti Vi h loP F;,’ ,1 j • i-i, ,,
i tO a )L 0 I b — 1 1 1’ ii’ tO ‘I 41’ ‘ I ‘1-t’’t , .1 \r, I c I n Brie! farN ieadiiln 10 Ibis pc!itin srI a utah Petio a 2 r r sii a ci Hc ha u P bar e p s t SStC Lxn ‘I I i 1 Vi it )‘ r I J I a 3 1J)I ii U J’ <tjf\y LA sat ilL iJa i’i i sU I r 2< c 2 ix <a i Lii I aunat s St (tCi 0 kir 2 of r ) S ii 9O <a p1 hi s d on Oi X]( Jr iht Sc IC I st p ii It fl( r S Lcim( 1 shoxi s r sJ ef<a inch lab Ii r th post of usia ach TI Ti (lai i. Uane is1 ji tpur ci’ <a H 10102 Tlioosh 2* <aId ‘,eI ‘s)n I t <a 501 d Is 12 5)11 £1 Li S 145 11 UCcL1 U iPOOlOhllIt at iItI r 1 1 .tI I) I op r I’ UI It 2 r ‘ 2 ‘ <aS r \ I 1 iJ I ‘ I ‘ 1ij I -4- page, there appears to be an illegal demand by C.D.P.O.. SrLD.H.Payaka and Manager of the same office. namely Sri. Machendra Vaghmare. demanding sum of a It Rs.80,000/- Issue from petkione?s mother is surprising that appointment order to petitioner. The said allegation is quite serious. though the said representation is made to one Sri. Doreswamy, working as Deputy Director, Women & Child Welfare Department, Bidar, on 05.01.2012, he has slept over the same. Seeking gratification and adopting corrupt practice In Government office is not a new thing and also not surprising thing. Unfortunately, the officers who are appointed to provide employment to economically weaker section of society, have turned out to be predators to torment them for their personal gain which Is highly deplorable.
It is seen that though such representation is made. no step appears to have taken by the said Officer. Keeping that aside, coming to the facts on hand, this Court find that there is no justifiable reason for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to -5- sleep over the matter In issuing appointment order to the petitioner herein for the post of Anganwadl Assistant for Hedgapur Village, pursuant to provisional list prepared by them on 25.09.20 10. It Is also brought to the notice of this Court that there was only one objection which was ified to provisional list by a person, viz., Smt. Prathibha, which is also stated to be withdrawn by her. In that view of the matter, there is absolutely no impediment for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for Issuing the appointment order to petitioner.
Operative part
Nos. 1 AccordIngly, the writ petition Is allowed. Respondent to 4 are directed to take necessary steps to immediately issue appointment order to petitioner herein, pursuant list prepared by them vide to provisional Armexure - ‘E” dated 25.09.20 10. In addition to this, this Court also feel ft Is necessary to direct respondent Nos. I and 2 to enquire Into the alleged demand of illegal gratification by C.D.P.O., Sri.D.H.Payaka and Office Manager, Sri. Machendra Vaghinare, within four \fr\ Ii 0111 1 lit claic’ a ‘j Je ‘e i1;t i)t ijus nreltr i’d 11:11 t
111.- out. nnj- of sa.d •‘nqilir In this o’r-’ nit’ii’ i’iu1c is t_j 1i it ir ii tilt q’ t ‘ ibu t C ii ‘ (‘ur I £ r C I ; i’ c i t K.et.is rar (t ‘icrr nf A “ court tic’ t (. n ii, itiat.’ oiiieinpt piua’eeu’iig’. iua’nst Nos 2 and 3 1nn—ii I n (‘iS’ bccle it Cf tla( arder 4 ii j% C out-I I —e ‘VA’
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.