(1) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 275 OF 2011 Sau. Parwatabai w/o Shankar Pamalwad, Age : 43 years, Occu.: Madatnis/Service, R/o Mendka, Tq. Mudkhed, Dist. Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Village Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32 (Copy to be served on G.P. High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. Commissioner, Ekatmik Bal Vikas Seva Yojana, Raigad Bhavan, New Mumbai 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, District Nanded 4. Balvikas Prakalpa Adhikari, Ekatmik Balvikas Seva Yojna, Project Office, at Mudkhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2896 OF 2011 Vandana D/o Hasaji Khillare, Age : 35 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Chuncha, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, (2) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr Women and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli 3. The Project Officer, Integrity Child Development Service Scheme, Plot B-II (Rural) Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 727 OF 2011 1. Sow. Vimal Krushnanath Kamble Age: 35 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pimpri Awghad, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar 2. Sow. Surekha Rajendra Tribuvan, Age : 35 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pimpri Awghad, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme Tq. Rahuri District Ahmednagar (Copy of Respondent no.1 to be served on G.P. High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) RESPONDENTS (3) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2478 OF 2011 Nanda D/o Nana Parkhe, Age : 34 years, Occu.: Household, R/o. Wahegaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist: Aurangabad VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Aurangabad (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court at Aurangabad) 2. Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad through its Chief Executive Officer 3. Balvikas Prakalp Adhikari, Ekatmik Balvikas Seva Yojna, Tq. Gangapur, Dist.: Aurangabad RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1605 OF 2011 1. Kanta w/o Govindrao Kale, Age : 42 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Kadrabad Dargah Road, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna 2. Sharda w/o Nivrutti Malode, Age : 27 years, Occu.: Service, R/o. Kadrabad, Utar Galli, Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna 3. Rukmin w/o Ramdas Lahane, Age : 29 years, Occu.: Service, R/o. Sidharth Nagar, Police Quarter, Infront of Suruchi Dhaba, Jalna, Dist. Jalna 4. Sunanda w/o Khanduji Kharat, Age : 28 years, Occu.: Service, R/o. Malipura, Shinde Wada, Jalna, Dist. Jalna PETITIONERS (4) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Collector, Jalna, Dist. Jalna (Copy of respondent no.1 and 2 to be served on G.P. High Court Bench at Aurangabad) 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Bhokardan, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna 5. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna Dist. Jalna RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3802 OF 2011 Sangita D/o Bhojappa Wanare, Age : 24 years, Occu.: Household, R/o. Shirur Kasar, Tq. Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. (Copy to be served on G.P. High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) (5) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr 2. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Shirur Kasar, Taluka Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1973 OF 2011 Samindra Vikram Choure, Age : 22 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Dandegaon, Tq. Kalamnoori, District Hingoli PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Woman and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Zilla Parishad Hingoli, Through its Chief Executive Officer 3. The Project Officer, Integrity Child Development and Service Scheme, Akhada-Balapur, Tq. Kalamnoori, District-Hingoli RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 400 OF 2011 Vaishali Bhujang Bade @ Vaishali Lahu Jaibhay, Age : 22 years, Occu.: Household, & Anganwadi Madatnis, R/o : Jaibhaywadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 (6) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr (Copy to be served on G.P. High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. Member Secretary & Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Project Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar 3. The President, Anganwadi Sevika/Madatnis/ Mini Anganwadi Sevika Selection Committee, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2011 Bharti D/o Ramesh Bagul, Age : 20 years, Occu.: Education, R/o Moharda, Post Bramhani, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Department of Women & Child Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Kannad, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad RESPONDENTS (7) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3884 OF 2011 Kavita d/o Baburao Rathod alias Kavita w/o Ujjwal Jadhav, Age : 24 years, Occu.: Unemployed, Post Graduate, R/o. Jahagirdarwadi, Taluka and District Osmanabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad 3. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Service Scheme, Ter Project, District Osmanabad 4. Anita Subhash Kolpe, Age : 29 years, R/o Jahagirdarwadi, Taluka and District Osmanabad RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5442 OF 2011 Narsabai D/o Ram Junkatwad, Age : 25 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Degaon, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Woman and Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. (8) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr (Copy to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded 3. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded 4. Surekha W/o Narayan Ainile, Age : 27 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Degaon, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded RESPONDENTS ..... Advocate/s for the Petitioner/s Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate (WP 275.2011) Mr. J.M. Murkute, Advocate (WP 2896.2011) Mr. Kishor N. Lokhande, Advocate (WP 727.2011) Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate (WP 2478.2011) Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate (WP 1605.2011) Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate (WP 3802.2011) Mr. Anand V. Indrale Patil, Advocate (WP 1973.2011) Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate (WP 400.2011) Mr. Santosh S. Jadahvar, Advocate (WP 378.2011) Mr. G.L. Awale, Advocate h/f. Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner (WP 3884.2011) Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate (WP 5442.2011) A.G.P./s for the Respondent-State. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. in all Writ Petitions Advocate/s for the Respondent/s Ms. Geeta Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4 (WP 275.2011) Ms. Priti Diggikar, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3(WP 2896.2011) (9) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate for respondent no.4(WP 1605.2011) Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for the respondent no.3 (WP 1973.2011) Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 (WP 400.2011) Mr. J.J. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2 (WP 378.2011) ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT (PER - M.T. JOSHI, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. In this group of Writ Petitions, the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010 providing for changed criterion for appointment to the honorary post of Anganwadi Sevika at various Anganwadi Centres under the Integrated Child Development Services are challenged. 3. Earlier, Government resolution dated 12.3.2008 was holding the field till the present Government Resolution dated 5.8.2010 was enforced. In the earlier Government Resolution, the minimum age was fixed at 18 and upper age limit was 44 years and (10) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr in case of Balwadi teachers, it was 55 years. By the new Government resolution, the prescribed lower age and upper age is between 25 to 35 years. Similarly, while the earlier Government Resolution provide for educational qualification as 8th standard, the new Government resolution prescribe that the Anganwadi Sevika should be 10th standard pass and below the said educational qualification could be appointed as a Helper (Madatnis). Thirdly, a new criterion of small family is provided, whereunder it is provided that the candidate should not have more than two children. 4. In all these Writ Petitions, the grievances are made on different counts. It was argued that while issuing the new Government Resolution, no statement of reason is given and directly the Government resolution is issued. There is no nexus between the changes those are made and the object which is sought to be achieved by making the changes. It was further argued that ordinarily educational qualification corresponds to the age and, therefore, the earlier criterion of fixing the lower age limit (11) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr at 19 years was reasonable. It was also submitted that the manual of Integrated Child Development Services (for short "I.C.D.S.") issued by the Central Government had provided for age group between 21 to 45 years and as against the said guidelines the new Government Resolution is issued. Lastly, as regards the small family criterion, it was submitted that since the concerned writ petitioner had three children before issuing of the Government resolution, the same would not be applicable in her case. Further, as regards the upper age criterion, an alternative argument was advanced by the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 2896 of 2011 that the petitioner being from reserved category, she was entitled for relaxation in the age limit, which is not provided by the Government resolution. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. submitted that the manual issued by the Central Government cannot be read as a statute. Even the earlier Government resolution was not an exact replica of the manual. He further submitted that taking into consideration the nature of the services (12) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr expected to be performed by the Anganwadi Sevika (Madatnis), it was thought that a more mature lady would be of much help who is required to perform various duties in a village. He further submitted that change in the criterion is a purely administrative act. In such circumstances, the learned A.G.P. wanted that the Petitions be dismissed. Objection to the maintainability of the Petitions was also taken on the ground that the petitioners have equally efficacious alternate remedy of raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. As regards the last of the objection of having alternate efficacious remedy, the petitioners are challenging the issuance of Government resolution and are not raising any industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the objection will have to be over-ruled. 7. As regards the framing and re-framing of the policy, the learned A.G.P. relied on Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. V. State of Uttaranchal and others (13) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr 2007 (8) S.C.C. 418, wherein it was held that when the petitioner fails to convince the Court that certain policy was arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of any statutory provision, the Government has power to frame and re-frame, change and re-change or adjust and re-adjust the policy. 8. The policy of fixing the eligibility criterion of a candidate having not more than two children was held to be not discriminatory as regards the holding of Offices under the Panchayati Raj Act by the Supreme Court in Javed and others v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2003 S.C. 3057. The objection that the said dis-qualification should be applicable only as regards the third or next of the child being borne after the issuance of Government resolution cannot be accepted since it is for the State to provide for the relevant criterion in order to achieve the object of having a small family. 9. The manual issued by the Central Government under the I.C.D.S. scheme cannot be equated with the statute. Those are merely guidelines which could be varied from State to State. (14) JUD-WP.275.2011+gr 10. In view of this matter, the Writ Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/