1 W.P. NO. 75.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2010 Smt. Rekha D/o Keshavrao Bhosale ... PETITIONER V E R S U S The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and others. ... RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.N.Gaddime Advocate holding for Mr. V.D.Gunale,Advocate for Petitioner Mr. Satish S.Manade, Advocate for respondent Nos 1 &2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 28TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel. 2] By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order rendered by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, rejecting the representation of the petitioner under Section 267-A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchyat Samitee Act, 1961. 3] The petitioner was initially selected for the post of “Anganwadi Sevika” under the Scheme “EkatmiKa Bal 2 W.P. NO. 75.10 Vikas Seva Yojana”. She was not appointed, but respondent No.4 Sonabai was appointed on the said post. The petitioner, therefore, filed representation before Additional Commissioner, which was registered as case No. 2008/Visha/Kaskh-2/ZPVP/CR-54. The learned Additional Commissioner rejected the representation holding that the petitioner was ineligible for said appointment. 4] The counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is not inhabitant of village i.e. Yermewadi, yet she was not disqualified, because previously she had worked as “Balwadi Sevika”. He would point out from the Government Resolution dated 12.03.2008 that for direct recruitment, requirement of the candidate being inhabitant of the same village is relaxed in respect of the candidate, who had been working as “Balwadi-Sevika” 5] I have gone through the relevant clause 6 of the Government Resolution. The relaxation is subject to condition that “Balwadi” is to be changed and transfered as “Anganwadi. In other words, Balwadi Sevika, who is 3 W.P. NO. 75.10 already working could be regard as eligible candidate if she is a woman and otherwise qualified for appointment as “Anganwadi Sevika”, though she is not inhabitant of the same village and undertakes to follow the condition that she would reside in that village. . Needless to say, such relaxation is not a general relaxation applicable to one and all. The “Balwadi” of village was closed down about 5 years prior to the concerned process of selection and appointment of the “Anganwadi Sevika”. Consequently , it is clear that when process for selection of Anganwadi Sevika was finalised, the petitioner could not have been appointed. In this view of the matter, her claim for direct appointment was rightly turned down by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order requires no interference. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR ) JUDGE MTK 4 W.P. NO. 75.10