(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 128 OF 2008 Rinabai w/o. Baban Sawant, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Village Badwani, Taluka : Gangakhed, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, integrated Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. 3. The Chief Executive Officer (Child Development, Z.P., Parbhani ), Taluka & District : Parbhani. 4. The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Gangakhed, Taluka : Gangakhed, District : Parbhani. (2) 5. Kushawarti d/o. Hiraman Sawant @ Kushawarti w/o. Trimbak Bhalerao, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Anganwadi Helper, R/o. village Badwani, Taluka : Gangakhed, District : Parbhani. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. J.M. Murkute, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. Sanjay Mundhe, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 4. Mr. S.V. Gutte, Advocate, for respondent no.5. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. By this petition, the petitioner questions the selection of respondent no.5, to the post of Anganwadi Helper, made in the year 2006. (3) 2. The main ground on which the selection of the respondent no.5 is challenged, is that she is not resident of the concerned village i.e. Badwani (Taluka : Gangakhed, District : Parbhani). 3. An affidavit in reply is filed by the Zilla Parishad, wherein it is categorically stated that the respondent no.5 is resident of the said village. The respondent no.5 had submitted voters' list, ration card, a certificate issued by Gramsevak, so also, a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, to substantiate the fact of resident in the said village. We are satisfied that the respondent no.5 satisfies the criteria of being resident of the village to claim the post of Anganwadi Helper. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised another ground, that the respondent no.5 has not been deserted by her husband. The material on record, including the application filed by the respondent no.5 for claiming maintenance against her husband, is indicative of the fact that the respondent no.5 has been deserted by her husband. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, we decline to entertain the petition, calling in question the selection of respondent no.5 as Anganwadi Helper, made in the year 2006. There being no substance in the petition, the petition needs to (4) be dismissed summarily. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed summarily. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp128