1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1410 of 2011 Sau. Hema Arunrao Mahakalkar VERSUS State of Maharashtra and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None for the petitioner Mr. P. D. Kothari, A.G.P. for the respondent no.1 Mr. P. V. Thakre, Advocate for the respondent no.2 and 3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 11th August, 2011. None for the petitioner. Heard Mr. P. D. Kothari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1 and Mr. P. V. Thakre, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. On hearing the learned counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the impugned order, dated 15.03.2011, we find that the Child Development Project Officer did not commit any error in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Sevika/ Madatnis/Mini Anganwadi Sevika as the petitioner had three issues and in view of the Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010, a candidate having three issues could not have been qualified for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Sevika. Merely because in the first delivery twins were born to the petitioner and in the second delivery a son was 2 born, it cannot be said that the petitioner had only two issues. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale