1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.6026 Of 2009 Indubai D/o Ramji Jadhav. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. S.D. Hiwrekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader for respondent No. 1. Shri. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Shri. D.R. Irale Patil, Advocate for respondent No.5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 5th NOVEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5 is not resident of 2 village Juni Panachiwadi which is an essential condition for selection as Anganwadi Sevika. It was submitted that certain documents were fabricated by respondent No.5 to suite the purpose. 3) Respondent No.5 filed affidavit-in-reply and controverted the allegations made against her. Reliance is also placed on the certificate issued by the authorities and states that the respondent No.5 is resident of Juni Panachiwadi. 4) It was submitted by Counsel Shri. Irale Patil that respondent No.5 secured 45 marks whereas the petitioner has secured 39 marks. The counsel submits that there is alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under section 267 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act. 4) After considering the relevant documents, the reply filed and the submissions 3 advanced by the learned counsel we find that no case is made by the petitioner for exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5) The writ petition is dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.6026.09