(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4177 OF 1994 Sow. Shobhabai w/o. Nagoba Waghmare, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Harbalpati, Post : Gaul, Taluka : Kandhar, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 3. Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Kandhar. 4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kandhar. 5. Smt. Kewalabai Madhavrao Tale, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Harbalpati, Post : Gaul, Taluka : Kandhar, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. Respondent no.4 served (Absent). Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate, for respondent no.5. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging the decision of the respondent no.2 to appoint respondent no.5 on the post of Anganwadi Madatnis / Sevika. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner was more qualified than the respondent no.5 and, therefore, she ought to have been appointed. (3) 3. Perusal of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 would reveal that though in the communication inviting applications, various documents were called for, the petitioner had failed to furnish any document and, as such, her claim could not be considered. In so far as appointment of respondent no.5 is concerned, it has been stated in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3, that all the relevant documents in support of her claim were submitted. 4. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4177