(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2802 OF 1999 Smt. Tulshi w/o. Subhash Aade (i.e. Tulshi d/o. Nanu Rathod), Age : 26 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Dasu Naik Tanda, under village Machindra-pardi, Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 3. The Selection Committee, through its President i.e. Block Development Officer, Kinwat. 4. Kum. Sindhu d/o. Shankar Sunakwad, Age : 20 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Badnapur, Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded. 5. Ekatmik Bal Vikas Sewa Prakalap Adhikari, At : Kinwat, Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5. Mr. A.D. Sugdare, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no.4 as an Anganwadi Sevika. 2. Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent no.4 was not eligible to be appointed as an Anganwadi Sevika, on the ground that the respondent no.4 is not resident of the said village, Machindrapardi (Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded). Further, the respondent no.4 is unmarried and as per the Government Resolution dated 18th June 1998, the respondent no.4, on the said ground, is ineligible. (3) 3. Mr. V.S. Panpatte, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent / Zilla Parishad, states that the said Government Resolution dated 18th June 1998 is cancelled and superseded by the Government Resolution dated 30th July 1998. 4. In that view of the matter, the ground, that the respondent no.4 is unmarried and hence ineligible, does not survive. During the selection process, the respondent no.4 has secured 357 marks, whereas the petitioner has secured 333 marks. Moreover, the respondent nos.2 and 5, in the affidavit, have stated that the petitioner, after the marriage, is not resident of the said village and resides with her husband and her name appears in the voters' list at village Lokurwadi. In the affidavit, the respondents have also stated that the respondent no.4 is resident of village Machindrapardi and certificate to that effect is also produced. 5. In the light of the above, the petitioner has no case on merit. As such, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2802