(1) WP 8826.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8826 OF 2011 Nanda D/o Dashrath Gavane, Age : 38 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Bhadgaon, Post Mankeshwar, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of present Petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint her directly as Anganwadi Sevika. Two points are raised by Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar in support of the Petition. It is firstly contended that since the petitioner had already applied for direct appointment as Anganwadi Sevika prior to the Government resolution dated 05.08.2010 came into existence, she would be governed (2) WP 8826.2011 by the qualification as existed prior to the Government resolution dated 05.08.2010 came into effect. Secondly, it is submitted that even as per the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010, the minimum requirement of having passed 10th standard is only applicable to such of Anganwadi Sevikas, who are sought to be directly appointed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said requirement is not applicable to the petitioner, as she is in-service candidate. 3. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, the petitioner is claiming only on the basis of her application, which according to the petitioner, is prior to the date of the Government resolution dated 5.8.2010 came into effect. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that the petitioner was in-fact selected prior to 5.8.2010. Merely because there was a vacancy and the petitioner had applied, would not create a right in favour of the petitioner to be treated in accordance with the earlier Government resolution and not the Government resolution dated 05.08.2010. (3) WP 8826.2011 4. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, some norms have been prescribed by the Government resolution dated 05.08.2010. Clause (1) of the said Government resolution provides that wherever the Balwadis are in existence, the same should be closed and at such places new Anganwadis are to be established. It provides that such of the Balwadi Shikshikas who have passed 10th standard, they should be appointed as Anganwadi Sevikas in new Anganwadi. It further provides that if the Balwadi Shikshika has not passed 10th standard, then she should be only appointed as Anganwadi Madatnis. Perusal of sub-clause (B) of clause (1) would reveal that if a Anganwadi Kendra is established in place of Mini Anganwadi Kendra, then if the Mini Anganwadi Sevika has passed 10th standard, then she should be appointed Anganwadi Sevika and if she has not passed 10th standard, she should be appointed as Anganwadi Madatnis. Sub-clause (C) of clause (1) would reveal that if the post of Anganwadi Sevika has become vacant then the Anganwadi Sevika working as Anganwadi Madatnis in the said Anganwadi should be appointed as (4) WP 8826.2011 Anganwadi Sevika directly, if she possesses the necessary qualification and the requirement regarding the local residence and if she possesses two years experience as Anganwadi Madatnis. Clause (2) provides the necessary requirement regarding the educational qualification, residence, age etc. Sub-clause (A) would clearly provide that in all the projects the Anganwadi Sevika and Mini Anganwadi Sevika should possess the minimum necessary educational qualification of 10th standard, whereas for the post of Anganwadi Madatnis, the necessary educational qualification is 7th standard. A conjoint reading of these provisions would clearly reveal that under the Government resolution dated 05.08.2010, insofar as Anganwadi Sevikas are concerned, the minimum necessary educational qualification is of having passed 10th standard. 5. Attempt on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner to read sub-clause (C) of clause (1) in isolation, in our considered view, is de-hors the legal position. It is by now well settled principle of law that all the provisions have to be (5) WP 8826.2011 read in harmony with each other. A particular provision cannot be read in isolation with dis-regard to other provisions. The harmonious construction of the Government resolution dated 05.08.2010 would reveal that even for promotion of Anganwadi Madatnis to Anganwadi Sevika, it is necessary that she should possess all the requisite qualification, including the educational qualification of having passed the 10th standard examination. 6. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the Petition, the same stands rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/