SUNIL B.SHUKRE,J. - (1.)Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
(2.)Petitioners have questioned the legality and correctness of the orders dated 24.12.2020 whereby respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been selected and appointed as 'Ahsa Health Workers ' in areas, Peshwe Plot and Chandani Chowk, Yavatmal, respectively.
(3.)According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, such appointments of respondent Nos.5 and 6 are illegal on two counts. She submits that respondent No.5 was not an experienced candidate and respondent No.6 was not resident of Chandani Chowk, Yavatmal. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has refuted these contentions. He submits that experience was not the sole criterion on the basis of which the selection has been done. He points out from the enquiry report, copy of which has been filed at page 384 of the petition, that marks were to be allotted for educational qualification, experience, presentation, knowledge about job of 'Asha Health Workers ', knowledge about vaccination, knowledge of area of work and general knowledge and accordingly, marks have been allotted to each of the candidates and in such evaluation, Sangita Amol Gajbhiye (respondent No.5) was selected and appointed as Asha Health Worker as petitioner No.2, Anita Ambadas Dongre had secured lessor marks than Sangita Amol Gajbhiye. He also points out that while respondent No.6, Alka Sayyed Mohamad Riyaz had produced certificate showing her ordinary residence of Chandani Chowk from one Corporator, petitioner No.1 Mamta Wasnik had produced two certificates of residence from two different Corporators, one from Pallavitai Ramteke and other from Chandrabhaga Madawi. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 points out that these two certificates were submitted by petitioner No.1 in a span of seven days and, therefore, the candidature of petitioner No.1 was not found to be suitable for such a job.