1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7200 OF 2010 Jayabai d/o Rangnath Dighule @ Jayabai w/o Ravi Khade, Age 24 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Kandari (KU), Laxman Tanda, Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Woman & Child Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy served to A.G.P. of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna. 4. Child Development Project Officer, Badnapur, District Jalna. 5. Sharda w/o Dilip Jadhav, Age 22 years, Occ. Household, R/o Kandari (KU), Laxman Tanda, Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.G. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. V.D. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri R.R. Imle, Advocate for respondent No.5 ..... 2 CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard extensively. By consent of the parties, heard finally. Counsel for respondents waive service. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Mini Anganwadi Sevika, based on proof to be residing at Kandari (KU), issued by the competent authority, the learned Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna. She was also supported from a certificate by Police Patil, Laxman Tanda, Taluka Badnapur and Gramsevak, Grampanchayat Kandari (KU), Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna. 2. The confusion that has emerged that in Kandari (KU) there is a Tanda. It is not distinct village but the learned Commissioner has treated as distinct identity and thereby held that the petitioner is resident of Kandari (KU), Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna and she is not eligible to be appointed as Mini Anganwadi Sevika. These observations of the learned Commissioner are contrary to the record and to some extent is contrary interpretation. 3 The Government Resolution dated 12.3.2008 illustrates the position which should have been considered by the learned Divisional Commissioner. The impugned order calls for interference. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. No costs. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE