1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5915 / 2010 (Smt.Kalpana R.Dhanokar vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 25th January, 2011. Heard Mr. M.A. Sable, learned counsel for the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is against the cancellation of approval by the Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme as well as the order of appointment dated 6.9.2010 issued in favour of respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 2.12.2009, the respondent no.2 has published an advertisement inviting applications from the Anganwadi Helpers for the purpose of filling up the posts of Anganwadi Sevikas. Learned counsel further submitted that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Anganwadi Helper in the Anganwadi which was situated at Madsud-2. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the Government Resolution dated 12th March 2008, the appointment order issued by the respondent on the post of Anganwadi Sevika is sustainable in law and, therefore, the impugned order of cancellation of approval is bad in law. Similarly, fresh appointment order issued in favour of respondent no.4 also cannot be sustained in law. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel and perused the Government Resolution. It is not in dispute that the candidates who are working in mini Anganwadi or Balwadi are entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Sevika, provided the new Anganwadi was constituted at that place by closing down the mini Anganwadi or Balwadi, which were operating prior to the establishment of the Anganwadi. In the instant case,the petitioner was not working either with the mini Anganwadi or with Balwadi but, at the relevant time, was working as Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi only. In that view of the matter, the benefit which flows from the Government Resolution dated 12th March 2008 cannot be given to the petitioner. Consequently, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare