1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7233 OF 2008 Nandabai Gangaram Rathod .. petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondent. Mr. A.N. Kakade, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for rspondent NO.1 Mr. B.N. Badegaonkar, Advocate for respondent NO.2 Mr. S.K. Chavan, Advocate for respondent NO.4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7290 OF 2008 Shaikh Shabana Shahabuddin ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. ] --- 2 Mr. A.N. Kakade, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for respondent NO.1 Mr. S.K . Chavan Advocate for respondent NO.4 Mr. Vivek M. Lomte, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 12TH JANUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 in both the petitions, for the post of “Anganwadi Helper” 2] In response to the advertisement issued for filling in the post of "Anganwadi Helper" the present petitioner alongwith others had applied for the same. The selection process is regulated by Govt. Resolution dated 12th March2008. The said resolution lays down the marking system and provides the distribution of 30 marks in the following manner :- [i] 10 marks for Educational Qualifications 3 [ii] 10 marks are to be allocated to the caste or tribe, if a candidate belongs to prescribed caste or tribe. [iii] 10 marks are for experience. Whereas, additional 30 Marks are left to the discretion of the committee, to be awarded in Viva-voce depending upon the performance of the candidate, bearing in mind that 10 marks are for personality, 10 marks for general knowledge and 10 marks for knowledge of the candidate in regard to the scheme, for the implementation of which the appointment is to be made. . According to the allocation of marks by the committee, the respondent No.4 has been selected to the post, whereas, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected as they have scored less number of marks, as compared to the selected candidate. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 2] The learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly relied on the circular issued by the Commissioner, Child 4 Development, dated 7/5/2008, to contend that it is not permissible for the selection committee to award zero marks or full marks, even if the performance of the candidate so deserve. Objection is taken to the awarding of full marks to the respondent No.4. 3] We have read the circular. The thrust of the circular is that the members of the selection committee need to be very careful and cautions while awarding the marks. It is crystal clear that a circular issued by the Commissioner, cannot override the Government Resolution issued in exercise of powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. We are unable to read the circular in a manner canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4] In the result, we do not find any illegality in the selection of respondent No.4. Hence, the petitions fail and are summarily dismissed. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.]