1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for challenging order Annexure P-1 dated 14.3.2008 and also non-selection of the petitioner on the post of Aaganwadi worker. The petitioner along with other persons applied for the post of Aaganwadi worker for Aaganwadi Centre Devpur in Gram Panchayat Gurichchha. Copy of the application has been filed as Annexure P-2. Along with petitioner other persons have also applied for the post. The District Level Committee in its meeting dated 16.8.2007 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that she is resident of village Gurichchha, because as per policy of appointment of Aaganwadi worker, candidate must be a resident of same village or ward. The committee decided to appoint one Ku. Asha as Aaganwadi worker. Subsequently, it was found that Ku. Asha was under age hence she could not be appointed as Aaganwadi worker. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector mentioning that she is entitled to be appointed as Aaganwadi worker. The Collector vide order dated 14.3.2008, Annexure P-1 rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner does not fulfill the requisite criteria for appointment as Aaganwadi worker because she is not a resident of village Devpur.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decision of the Collector and the District Committee that the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed as Aaganwadi worker because she is not the resident of village Devpur is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others [2002 SCC (L&S) 935], and judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Savitri Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2004(1) MPWN 66=2003(4) MPLJ 106].

3. Contrary to this learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that petitioner is not a resident of village Devpur and as per policy of the State Government, which was prevailing at that time candidate of Aaganwadi worker must be a resident of same village. Hence, the candidature of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. In support of her contention learned Deputy Advocate General relied upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Appeal No.421/2007 Smt. Sadhana v. State of M.P. and others.

4. From the facts of the case, it is clear that candidature of the petitioner has not been considered on the ground that she is not a resident of village Devpur. It has been mentioned by the District Committee in the proceeding dated 16.8.2007 that the petitioner is a resident of village Gurichchha and village Gurichchha is a part of Gram Panchayat Devpur. The appointment of Aaganwadi worker in question was for Aaganwadi Centre, Devpur. The Women and Child Development Department issued a policy with regard to appointment of Aaganwadi worker, copy of the policy has been filed as Annexure P-3 dated 27.5.2006. In the aforesaid policy the eligibility criteria for appointment has also been mentioned. One of the eligibility criteria is the name of the woman must be recorded in the voter list of the same village and ward. Subsequently the department issued another policy/ circular dated 10.7.2007 for appointment with regard to Aaganwadi worker. Copy of the same has been filed along with the rejoinder. In the aforesaid policy, it has been mentioned with regard to eligibility criteria for appointment that the applicant must be resident of same village and ward. The aforesaid criteria has been considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Savitri Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2004(1) MPWN 66=2003(4) MPLJ 106]. The learned Single Judge has held as under:

"After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the Commissi