1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No. 6527/2006 Smt. Savita Narendra Borkar vs. Zilla Parishad, Gondia and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande & R.V.More,JJ DATE : 9.10.2007 Heard Mr. M.Y.Wadodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kapgate, learned counsel for respondents 1,2,3,4 and 6 and Mr. Bapat, learned counsel for respondent no.7. The petitioner challenges the selection of respondent no.7 on the post of Anganwadi Sevika. The main contention of the petitioner that she has not been given fifteen marks under the head of experience and ten marks under the head of completion of Anganwadi/ Balwadi course. The chart at Exh.6 shows the total marks obtained by the petitioner, respondent no.7 as well the other candidates. The petitioner obtained 262 total marks and respondent no.7 obtained 279 total marks. The petitioner relied upon the certificate at page no. 18 (Annexure 2) in order to substantiate her case that she has experience of one year from Rani Durgawati Higher 2` Secondary High School, Kandrikala. The petitioner also in order to claim ten marks under the head “completion of Anganwadi / Balwadi Course” relied upon the document at page no. 17 (Annexure 1). Perusal of the Government Resolution dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure R-II) reveals that the requirement of experience and completion of above course should be from the Government Institutions. It is not disputed that the documents relied upon by the petitioner about completion of the course and experience are not given by the Government Institutions. In view of this, in our opinion, the petitioner was not rightly given twenty five marks under the head of experience and completion of Balwadi course. The total marks obtained by the respondent no.7 on the contrary are 279 which are more than the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge Judge patle