1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.3807 of 2007 [Ku. Bhumikabai T. Hatwar Vs. Sukhwanti R. Sulakhe & others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R.C.CHAVAN,JJ. DATE : 05th September,2007. 1. Heard. 2. In the process of selection for appointment as Anganwadi Sevika, the petitioner has been included in the merit list of candidates whose performance was assessed, and petitioner's name figures at Serial No.12. Respondent no.1 is shown at Serial No.3, and being a Project-affected Person, is likely to be appointed. 3. According to the petitioner, on the basis of Annexure-E [page 12], respondent no.1- Sukhwanti Ramprasad Sulakhe is the nominee of Choplal Shrawal Lilhare, a Project-affected Person, and that such nomination is 2 impermissible. 4. The petitioner does not dispute that a family member of the Project-affected person can be appointed. In the petition, any dispute is not raised as to why the respondent no.1 being the family member of Choplal Shrawal Lilhare is sought to be appointed. It is clear from page 12 that respondent no.1 is the wife of the Project- affected person  Choplal Lilhare, who has given authentication/nomination. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhandarkar urged that authentication, as seen at page 12 [Annex.E], is not sufficient, and there should have been a Certificate like one the petitioner has. 6. In fact, the contention raised in the petition can be spelt out from paragraphs 4 and 5 which are quited below for ready reference :- 4) That since the Respondent No.1 does not hold the certificate as a project affected person her husband namely Choplal s/o Shrawal Lilhare, aged about 37 years, r/o Pardibandh had given an ADHIKAR PATRA dated 7/2/2003 in favour of the Respondent No.1, that all the rights held by said Choplal s/o Shrawan Lilhare stood transferred in the name of Respondent No.1. The said ADHIKAR PATRA dated 7/2/2003 is annexed herewith as Annexure-E to the petition. 5) That the Respondent No.2 to 5 had 3 accepted such transfer of the project affected person's certificate by a husband in his wife's favour without there being a statutory provisions for such transfer. In the humble submission of the petitioner, the certificate issued to a project affected persons is not a property, which can be transferred, by executing such document [ADHIKAR PATRA] which is at Annexure-E or in any other manner. That the Respondent No. 2 to 5 have permitted such transfer of rights as a project affected person which can not be sustained to the scrutiny of law and is impugned in the present petition. 7. The submissions now made that there is no certification by the Authorities is, therefore, untenable, more particularly when the Authorities had scrutinized the candidature and found the respondent no.1 to be a Project- affected Person. Moreover, there is no dispute raised in the petition that husband of respondent no.1 Choplal Shrawal Lilhare is not a Project-affected person. 8. In fact, the petitioner's case is that she is the daughter of the Project-affected person  Tulshiram Narbad Hatwar. In these admitted premises, the petitioner's contention that the respondent no.1 is not eligible, while the petitioner is, is a far fetched submission and hence untenable. 4 9. Petition does not merit interference. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau|