SBCWP No.7708/2006. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7708/2006. Smt.Buglesh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : September 26, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sunil Kumar Singodiya for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel. Shri Rajeev Sharma for respondent No.5. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 26/8/2006 (Ann.7) whereby respondent No.5 was selected on the post of Anganbadi Karykarta when candidature of the petitioner was not considered. 2) Shri Sunil Kumar Singodiya, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner also applied for appointment for such post but her candidature was ignored on the premise that she has crossed upper age limit of 24 years. Her application was illegally ignored when the meeting of Gram Sabha was held on 26/8/2006. Petitioner immediately served notice for demand of justice on 28/9/2006 and then filed writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the court to the government circular dated 24/6/2006 according to which, priority in the matter of appointment of Anganbadi Karykartas was to be given to Mahila Preraks who were hitherto working in Balwadis which have since been closed down by the education department. SBCWP No.7708/2006. 2 3) Respondents in reply to writ petition have contended that application of the petitioner was not received but that was seriously contested by the petitioner who has produced receipt of submitting application. 4) The fact that petitioner was working as Mahila Prerak in the Balwadi of village Mehada Jatuwas is not under dispute. Petitioner was working as Mahila Prerak in the Balwadi of the said village from 20/12/2004 to 16/5/2006 and she was relieved from that assignment due to closure of the Balwadi. In this manner, candidature of the petitioner could not be ignored and respondents could not on the pretext of her being more than 24 years of age, refuse her right of consideration more particularly when policy of the government was to give priority to Mahila Prerak of the Balwadi which was closed down. 5) In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 26/8/2006 (Ann.7) is quashed and set- aside. Respondents are directed to hold fresh selection considering candidature of the petitioner and other eligible candidates. The compliance of the judgment shall be made within three months from the date certified copy of the same is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil