1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6741 OF 2009 Maya d/o Murlidhar Dahale, Occu:Anganwadi Sevika, At- Z.P. Prathmik Shala, Pimperkheda, Kendra Watur, Tq-Partur, Dist-Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary of Women and Children's Development Department, New Administrative Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.M.S. Taur Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. According to the Petitioner, she was and is working as Anganwadi Sevika. An advertisement was issued in the month of January, 2008 for appointment of Anganwadi Supervisor. Written and oral tests were held, according to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was listed at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list. However the appointment order was not issued to the Petitioner. It is contended by the Petitioner that in the month of July, 2008 second advertisement was issued and examination conducted. The Petitioner participated in the second selection process but the Petitioner was not selected. Another candidate was selected and appointed as Anganwadi Supervisor on 29th December 2008, who was at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list of second selection process. 3. Admittedly the Petitioner did not file 3 representation/grievance petition before the competent Authorities. According to the counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner preferred to approach this Court by filing present Petition on 27th February, 2009. One of the ground the Petitioner's counsel now raising, is that the Petitioner ought to have been given more marks as she completed 15 years service as Anganwadi Sevika. The counsel submits that the Petitioner secured 72% marks in the subsequent selection process, whereas the selected candidate secured 76% marks. 4. In the facts of the case, we find that the Petitioner participated in the selection process held for second time. Therefore, she cannot now raise the grievance that the selection process ought not to have been undertaken, second time. On issue of allotment of marks, we find that the selection is already made, appointment order is already issued and therefore, it would not be reasonable and proper to look into the allotment 4 of marks, at this stage. The Petitioner did not make any grievance in this respect to competent Authorities who were entitled to look into the matter. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition in exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp6741.09