SONUBAI CHANDRASHEKHAR SHELARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:8124-DB
                                              1                         928WP494.2026.odt

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               928 WRIT PETITION NO. 494 OF 2026

                                  Sonubai Chandrashekhar Shelar
                                               VERSUS
                                 The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                                                 ...
               Mr. Prashant N. Khedkar - Advocate for the Petitioner
               Mr. R. S. Wani - AGP for State
               Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar – Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5
                                                 ...

                                        CORAM :      SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
                                                             AND
                                                     HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
                                        DATED :      17TH FEBRUARY, 2026


               ORAL ORDER [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] : -


               1.          The present petition, filed under Article 226 of the

               Constitution of India, challenges the Government Resolution dated

               30.01.2025 issued by the Women and Child Development Department,

               by which grace marks of 10 were awarded to a graduate candidate. The

               petitioner further challenges the appointment order dated 24.04.2025

               issued by Respondent No. 4 in favour of Respondent No. 5, contending

               that the appointment was made based on the benefit granted to

               Respondent No. 5 under the Government Resolution dated 30.01.2025.



               2.          The Petitioner states that, the Petitioner had applied for the

               post of Anganwadi Helper on the basis of an advertisement issued by the

               Women and Child Development Department. It is contended by the
                               2                         928WP494.2026.odt

Petitioner that, Respondent No. 1 has issued a Government Resolution

dated 02.02.2023, thereby providing directions for the appointment of

Anganwadi Helper, who is directly appointed as Anganwadi Sevika after

completion of two years of service. The Government Resolution

mentions the age limit of 35 years for the candidate, and it also provides

for a marking system for the appointment of Anganwadi Sevika, Helper,

and Mini Anganwadi Sevika. It is the case of the Petitioner that, for the

purpose of appointment of a candidate who has completed graduation, a

maximum of 5 marks was to be awarded, whereas a minimum of 1 mark

was to be awarded depending upon the marks scored in graduation.

Additionally, 25 marks were to be awarded depending upon the status

and experience of the candidate.



3.          It is further stated by the Petitioner that, Respondent No. 1,

on 30.01.2025, came out with another Government Resolution, thereby

modifying the marking system provided in the earlier Government

Resolution dated 02.02.2023 without giving any justification. According

to the Petitioner, the marks which were to be awarded for a graduate

candidate were increased from 5 to 10, and secondly, additional marks

were reduced from 25 to 20. The Petitioner further states that the earlier

criteria of awarding marks after considering the marks scored by the

candidate in graduation has been discontinued by the Respondents, and

everyone who has completed graduation will be awarded 10 marks
                                3                           928WP494.2026.odt

indiscriminately. The Petitioner states that she has completed D.Ed. and

was awarded only 2 marks. If the marks awarded for graduate degree

holders were increased from 5 to 10, then marks for other qualifications

should also have been increased. Thus, it is submitted by the Petitioner

that the marking system provided in the Government Resolution dated

30.01.2025 is totally arbitrary, discriminatory, and is liable to be set

aside.



4.          The    Petitioner   further   states   that   she,   along   with

Respondent No. 5, has applied for the post of Anganwadi Helper, and

both the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 5 obtained similar marks.

However, as the Petitioner has completed her D.Ed. qualification and

Respondent No. 5 has obtained a graduation degree in Bachelor of

Science, the education of Respondent No. 5 was considered higher, and

she was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Helper by order dated

24.04.2025. The Advocate for the Petitioner thus submits that both the

Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 5 obtained equal marks, but it is

only because of the benefit provided by the Authorities to Respondent

No. 5, her selection was made on the basis of grace marks, which were

introduced for the first time by way of the impugned Government

Resolution. He argued that the earlier marking system was appropriate,

and if that had been considered, the Petitioner would have had a chance

to be appointed.
                                4                          928WP494.2026.odt

5.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as

well as the learned AGP appearing for the State. We have also perused

the Government Resolution dated 30.01.2025, as well as the earlier

Government Resolution dated 02.02.2023.



6.           It is a matter of record that the Government, by way of its

policy decision, has unilaterally granted a benefit of 10 marks to all

candidates who possess a graduate degree. The said Government

Resolution is not person-specific but represents a uniform policy adopted

by the State Government. We do not find any kind of discrimination in

the policy decision taken by the Government.



7.           Secondly, the Government Resolution dated 30.01.2025

was very much in existence when the application forms were submitted

by the Petitioners as well as Respondent No. 5 for appointment as

Anganwadi Helper. Thus, the Petitioner was well aware of the policy

decision of the State Government whereby a graduate candidate would

be allotted grace of 10 marks. In spite of this, the Petitioner participated

in the process, which has now culminated in the appointment order of

Respondent No. 5 issued by Respondent No. 4.



8.           Merely because the Petitioner has not been appointed, the

Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise any kind of grievance
                                                             5                          928WP494.2026.odt

                             subsequently to the policy decision of the State Government. Much less,

                             the Government Resolution, according to us, is a policy framed by the

                             State Government, and once the Petitioner fails to demonstrate any kind

                             of discrimination, arbitrariness, or illegality in the decision-making

                             process, this Court will not interfere with the same under its writ

                             jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.



                             9.           Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and

                             therefore stands dismissed. No order as to costs.




                              [HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR]                 [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
                                     JUDGE                                   JUDGE




                             SG Punde




Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/02/2026 11:02:14