Valid statutory residency documents cannot be superseded by hearsay or unverified local inquiry reports.

The Petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Sevika at Padoshi village, having ranked first in merit

A residency requirement in the recruitment advertisement (Clause 4(2)) necessitated that candidates be residents of the village where the center is located

The Petitioner submitted a Gram Sevak certificate, a Ration Card issued prior to the advertisement, an Aadhaar Card, and an EPIC card, all reflecting her residence in Padoshi

Respondent No. 4, the second-ranked candidate, filed a complaint alleging the Petitioner actually resided in Sherewadi and was only a tenant in Padoshi

Based on an inquiry report by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), which relied on a panchnama and the fact that the Petitioner’s son attended school in Sherewadi, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) disqualified the Petitioner on February 6, 2023

The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, dismissed the Petitioner's appeal

The Petitioner challenged these orders via the present Writ Petition.

1. Whether the Petitioner satisfied the residency criteria established under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme and the specific recruitment advertisement

2. Whether the inquiry conducted by the CDPO and the subsequent disqualification orders were based on legally sustainable evidence or were vitiated by procedural and evidentiary errors

The court applied the service conditions and qualifications for Anganwadi employees as prescribed under the Government Resolution dated August 13, 2014

It further relied on the evidentiary requirements stipulated in Clause 4(2) of the recruitment advertisement, which mandates residency proof via a Gram Sevak certificate, self-declaration, and one of three documents: Aadhaar Card, Ration Card, or EPIC Card

The court also applied general principles of administrative law regarding the necessity of a meaningful inquiry and the weighing of long-standing official documentary evidence against hearsay information

The Court found that the Petitioner had submitted all three categories of documents required to prove residency, the genuineness of which was not disputed by the authorities

The Court characterized the CDPO’s report as "vague," noting it relied on "hear-se information" without identifying sources or recording statements from alleged landlords

The Court held that the fact that the Petitioner's son studied in an adjoining village did not ipso facto negate her documentary proof of residence

Regarding the panchnama dated November 9, 2022, the Court observed it was undated in its execution, the original was missing from the record, and it was logically improbable that a candidate would sign a document against her own interests

The Court determined that the administrative authorities failed to apply an independent mind and erroneously dislodged the Petitioner based on "absurd" grounds that could not override official government records like EPIC and Aadhaar cards

It quashed and set aside the CEO's order dated February 6, 2023, and the Divisional Commissioner's appellate order dated November 24, 2023

The Court directed the CEO and CDPO of Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, to reinstate the Petitioner as Anganwadi Sevika at the Padoshi Center within four weeks

The appointment of Respondent No. 4, being a consequence of the Petitioner's erroneous removal, was rendered unsustainable