Dismissed¶¶14

Sau. Saneeta Shamlal Jawarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Woman and Child Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Constitution of India – Article 227

Bombay HC15 Dec 2025WP/5715/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sau. Sangeeta v. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.5715/2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, decided 15-12-2025 by Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. Keywords: Article 227 Constitution of India; Anganwadi Sewika appointment; Anganwadi Center Kalpi; Zilla Parishad Chief Executive Officer communication to Registrar of Bombay High Court dated 09-07-2025; challenge to communication versus challenge to decision; no vacant post; residence/jurisdiction requirement; prior Writ Petition No.2137/2024 decided 01-04-2025; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs; liberty to challenge respondent no.4's decision.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition not entertained and dismissed with no order as to costs, petitioner left at liberty to challenge respondent no.4's decision on appointment as Anganwadi Sewika.

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

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.

Sau. Saneeta Shamlal Jawarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Woman and Child Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Saneeta Shamlal Jawarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Woman and Child Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sau. Asha Sudhakar Gujar vs Jayant Mahendra Sapkal

Alok Madhukar Ghate vs Swati Sudhakar Bawane

Neha W/O Vaibhav Mundada Vs Vaibhav Gopaldas Mundada

Smt. Vatsalabai Wd/O Digambar Gangawane and Others vs Vishwas @ Dhondu Mukinda Gangawane and Others

Maha. State Road Transport Corporation, Thr. Its Divisional, Controller, Akola Vs Praniti W/O Nitin Shewatkar and Others

Smt. Kusum Suresh Nagardhankar Vs Smt. Prerna Wd/O Praveen Nagardhankar, (Smt. Prerna W/O Prabhakar Sant) and Others