Bombay High CourtWP/10012/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Rekha Suresh Gaikwad v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2016-11-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sangitrao S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice R. M. Borde2 pages

{1} wp1001216.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10012 OF 2016 Rekha d/o Suresh Gaikwad Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.S.N.Patne, advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.M.BORDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 15th November, 2016 PER COURT:

Petitioner is objecting to the advertisement issued by Respondent No.3 for the purpose of making appointments to the posts of Anganwadi Sevika and Anganwadi Madatnis. Petitioner is more particularly objecting to the condition in respect of age limit of the candidate, prescribed in the said advertisement. According to the petitioner, upper age limit prescribed for making application for the said posts, as stated in the advertisement, is 30 years, which is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2008. The Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2008, prescribes the upper age limit for the subject posts as 44 years.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for Respondent-State, has invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 13th August, 2014,. The said Government

{2} wp1001216.odt Resolution has been issued superseding all earlier Government Resolutions including Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2008. In the Resolution issued by the State on 13th August, 2014, the upper age limit for the posts of Anganwadi Sevika, Anganwadi Karyakarti and Anganwadi Madatnis is prescribed as 30 years and in view of paragraph no.2 (E)(II) of the Resolution, intensive of 10 marks is prescribed in favour of the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe category.

In view of subsequent Government Resolution issued by Respondent-State on 13th August, 2014, prescribing the upper age limit as 30 years, challenge raised by the petitioner, in the instant petition, does not deserve consideration. Petition is devoid of substance.

Writ Petition stands dismissed.

SANGITRAO S. PATIL R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp1001216