(1) JUD-WP-218.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 218 OF 2011 Anjali d/o Prafulla Sutwane Age : 36 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Brahmangalli, Begampura, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Woman and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurnagabad) 2. The Child Development Project Officer, Civil Project No.3 Devgiri Co-op. Society, Near Gaokari Press, Khokadpura, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.P. Basarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent no.1. None present for respondent no.2 though served. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT (PER - M. T. JOSHI, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. (2) JUD-WP-218.2011 2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent for allowing her to appear before the duly constituted selection committee for the post of Anganwadi Sevika and Assistant. 3. In pursuance of the advertisement published on 1.1.2010, the petitioner has applied for the post of Anganwadi Sevika and Assistant. It was declared by the said advertisement that the upper age limit for these posts would be 44 years. As her age was 35 years and 10 days, she had applied for the post. However, the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 10.8.2010 informed that in view of the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010, the upper age limit for the post of Anganwadi Sevika and Assistant was between 25 to 35 years, therefore, her application was rejected. 4. The only dispute in the present Petition is as to whether the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010 would be applicable to the posts already advertised by the respondent on 1.1.2010. (3) JUD-WP-218.2011 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that since the selection process was yet to begin, the Government Resolution dated 5.8.2010 would be applicable. However, the Government resolution itself prescribes that it would be applicable with effect from issuing of the said Government resolution. Further, the well established principle of law that any declaration would have prospective effect already restated in the case of "Suman Shriram Kakad Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. 2011(1) Mh.L.J. 766", is relied on. 6. In view of the above circumstances, the Writ Petition will have to be allowed. The communication dated 10.8.2010 (Exhibit "C" to the Petition) issued by the respondent no.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. Instead the respondents are directed to consider the application/s of the petitioner for the post according to the due procedure of law. 7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/