Sau. Saneeta Shamlal Jawarkar v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Woman And Child Development Dept., Mumbai And ORS.
1 wp 5715.25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5715/2025 Sau. Sangeeta V State of Maharashtra and 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.S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms Bawankule, AGP for resp. nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR , J.
DATE : 15-12-2025.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 09-07-2025 which is issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad addressed to the Registrar of Bombay High Court, intimating the progress about the proceedings after the Writ Petition No.2137/2024 was decided by this Court. A perusal of this letter/communication shows that by this letter, respondent no.4-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad has communicated the fact that there does not exist any vacant post against which the petitioner could be accommodated and secondly since the petitioner is not resident within the jurisdiction of the concerned Anganwadi Center, she cannot be granted any appointment. It also mentions, that in case vacancy arises with respect to the Anganwadi at Kalpi, the petitioner would be considered.
3.
A perusal of this communication shows that respondent no.4 has independently taken some decision after the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2137/2024 vide judgment dated 01-04-2025. It is thus clear that instead of challenging the decision or order denying the appointment to the petitioner as Anganwadi Sewika of Kalpi, the
2 wp 5715.25.odt petitioner has only challenged the communication sent by respondent no.4 to the Registrar of this Court. As such, no indulgence is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the decision, if any, given by respondent no.4 with respect to grant of appointment as Anganwadi Sewika in Anganwadi Center. In view of this, writ petition is not entertained. The same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Prafulla S. Khubalkar , J.
) Deshmukh