1 wp3102.11Third IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3102 OF 2011 Baby Manik Tamboli : Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.D.V.Sutar for the petitioner. Ms M.P.Thakur, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATE : JULY 18, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent no.1. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the resignation submitted by the petitioner dated 7.9.2010 as Anganwadi Sevika came to be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 5.8.2010, the candidate is entitled to retain either the membership of the Gram Panchayat or her appointment as 2 wp3102.11Third Anganwadi Sevika. However, it is submitted that the Government Resolution came into force with effect from 5.8.2010 whereas the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Sevika long time ago and elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat with effect from 23.8.2010. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the Government Resolution when she filed the nomination papers for contesting the election of member of the Gram Panchayat. It is also submitted that the Resolution dated 5.8.2010 is prospective in nature and does not find any application insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 3. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel. Apart from other issues, it is not in dispute that the Government Resolution came into effect on 5.8.2010. Even if it is presumed that it has prospective application, even then the petitioner is not entitled to retain both the posts and has to give up either of them. In the instant case, the petitioner, whether she knew about the Government Resolution or not, submitted her resignation as Anganwadi Sevika, which was accepted by the respondent no.2 on 25.10.2010 and, therefore, in view of these undisputed facts, the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived and devoid of substance. 3 wp3102.11Third 4. The petition suffers from lack of merit and the same is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)