1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 5113 of 2008 Ujwala v. State and ors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr N.N. Thengre, Adv for petitioner. Mr S.J. Jichkar, AGP for respondent no.1. Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 7th January 2009 1. Heard Mr N.N. Thengre, learned counsel for petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent no. 5 on the post of Anganwadi Sevika. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case, Mr Patole, Member of Legislative Assembly was Chairman of Selection Committee which has selected respondent no.5. It is contended that the Chairman has shown undue favour to respondent no. 5 and ignored the legitimate claim of the petitioner by giving more marks to respondent no.5. It is contended that the action of Chairman of the Selection Committee is malafide and, therefore, selection of 2 respondent no.5 is bad in law. It is further contended that the petitioner is a widow, however, this aspect has been ignored by the Selection Committee and, therefore, selection of respondent no. 5 cannot be sustained in law. 2. Mr S.J. Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, has supported the action of Selection Committee and contended that respondent no.5 has secured 58 marks in the interview process whereas the petitioner has secured 57 marks. It is further contended that there is no specific allegation of malafides either against the Chairman or other members of the Selection Committee made by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by learned counsel for the respective parties. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that except the general averment that MLA who was Chairman of the Selection Committee has shown undue favour to respondent no. 5 at the time of selection by giving more marks, there are no specific averments regarding malafide and in absence thereof, it is difficult for us to hold that the selection of respondent no. 5 is malafide merely because respondent no.5 has obtained more marks than the petitioner in the process of selection. 4. So far as the aspect of petitioner being widow is concerned, we have seen clause (2) of Jahirnama which requires 3 the candidate to annexe certificate of tahsildar showing that the candidate (female) was widow. In such situation, it is evident that the candidate who is widow secures marks equivalent to the other candidate who is not widow, in such situation alone, the candidate who is widow needs to be given preference and not otherwise. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has secured lesser marks than respondent no. 5. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. Judge. Judge. hsj