(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4715 OF 2009 Shilita Ashruba Takale, Age : 19 years, Occupation : Service (Anganwadi Karyakarti), R/o. Kolpimpri, Taluka : Dharur, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. 3. The Selection Committee, for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Kaij, Dist. Beed, Through its Member Secretary i.e. Child Development Project Officer. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Kaij, District : Beed. (2) 5. Sushma w/o. Bharat Ingale, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Kolpimpri, Taluka : Dharur, District : Beed. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. S.S. Dambe, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. P.P. Dama, Advocate, for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for respondent no.5. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23rd June 2009 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in Case No. 2008/Vi.Sha./Kaksha-2/ZPVP/CR-50, thereby allowing the appeal filed (3) by the present respondent no.5. 2. The petitioner came to be selected for the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarti. Challenging her selection, the respondent no.5 filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The same is allowed. Hence, the present petition. 3. Mr. S.S. Dambe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Divisional Commissioner has erred in allowing the appeal. He submits that the appeal is allowed only on the ground that the petitioner was not 18 years of age on the date of filing of the application. He submits that on the date on which the petitioner was interviewed and also on the date on which she was selected, she had completed 18 years of age and, as such, the learned Divisional Commissioner has erred in allowing the appeal. He has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines & others (2009 AIR SCW 3265). 4. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.5, supports the impugned order. 5. Perusal of the advertisement, which is annexed to the petition at page 14, would reveal that in the advertisement, it was specifically stated that in so far as eligibility regarding age is concerned, the candidate should be between 18 to 44 years. It is thus clear that a candidate, to be qualified to participate in the selection process, must have completed 18 years of age on the date of making an application. (4) Admittedly, the last date of making application was 31st May 2008. Further, admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner is 29th August 1990. It is thus clear that the petitioner had not completed 18 years of age on the date of making application. 6. In so far as the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines & others (supra), is concerned, it cannot be doubted that it is a settled law, that once a person participates in the selection process, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair. In the said case, the appellant who had participated in the selection process, had contended that the allocation of 50 % marks for oral interview was arbitrary. In that background, the Apex Court has held that a candidate, participated in the selection process, cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair. 7. In the present case, the present petitioner was not at all eligible to apply for the post concerned. As to whether the petitioner was having requisite age, on the date of making application, cannot be within the knowledge of respondent no.5. As such, has participation in the selection process would not preclude her from challenging the appointment of the petitioner after she came to know that the petitioner did ;not have the necessary age for being eligible. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the Apex Court, cited supra, would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. (5) 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4715