1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 676/2008 (Saroj Vijay Aadole VERSUS The State of Mah. & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. S.A. Gordey, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V.A. Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1 & 2. Mr. S.N. Bhattad, counsel for the R-3. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : APRIL 29, 2008. Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is against the appointment of respondent no.3 as Anganwadi Sevika. At the outset, it is brought to the notice of this Court that as per Government Resolution dated 09.02.2005, if the candidate is working as Balwadi Sevika, preference is required to be given while filling up the post of Anganwadi Sevika, however, there is rider to this aspect that the candidate who is working as Balwadi Sevika should be from the same village where the post of Anganwadi Sevika is required to be filled in. It is not in dispute that the petitioner does not belong to the village where the respondent no.3 has been appointed as 2 Anganwadi Sevika since respondent no.3 was working as Balwadi Sevika in the same village. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, the grievance canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner in respect of the respondent no.3 is misconceived. The petition suffers from lack of merits, hence, the same is dismissed. Needless to mention that if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, the respondent nos.1 and 2 are free to act accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE APTE