Payal Kailash Waghmare Alias Payal Deepak Sasane v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:17247 941 WP NO.4586.2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4586 OF 2024 PAYAL KAILASH WAGHMARE ALIAS PAYAL DEEPAK SASANE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. V. D. Tele AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. N. D. Raje Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 5 : Ms. Rutuja N. Pakle h/f Mr. H. P. Jadhav Advocate for Respondent No. 6 : Mr. A. N. Nagargoje ...

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

Dated : July 2, 2025 PER COURT :- 1.

The present petition pertains to the selection process of Anganwadi Sevika. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one of the conditions of eligibility is that the candidate must be resident of the village in which the Anganwadi is located. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent No. 6 who is selected had filed Residence Certificate issued by the Sarpanch who according to him is not a Competent Authority to issue Residence Certificate. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Tahsildar is the Competent Authority for issuing Residence Certificate. The candidature of the

941 WP NO.4586.2024 -2respondent No. 6 was initially rejected on the ground that Residence Certificate was issued by the Sarpanch. The respondent No. 6 filed appeal provided under the scheme before the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad who has allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner who had also participated in the selection process had filed a second appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner, the present petition is filed.

2.

The issue raised by the petitioner is no longer res integra. This controversy is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Sau. Raksha Balu Pawar Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 2247 of 2023). 3.

In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. As such, writ petition stands dismissed. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Omkar Joshi