2026:BHC-AUG:2010-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13945 OF 2025 Priyanka Sidu Nimse Age 31 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. At Sakat, Post Shiradhon, Tal. And Dist. Ahmednagar ---Petitioner VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Publish Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.

3. The District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.

4. Maharashtra Nursing Council Through its Registrar Mumbai. ---Respondents Mr. R. B. Dhakane h/f Mr. B. S. Borde, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A. D. Aghav, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for respondent-State CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi &

Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.

DATE : 12^th January, 2026 JUDGMENT (PER : Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) :-

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality of her disqualification from the recruitment process conducted by the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, for appointment to the post of Arogya Sevak (Female). The relief sought is a direction to the respondent authorities to consider her candidature and appoint her to the said post on the ground that she possesses a qualification which, according to her, is higher than the qualification prescribed in the advertisement.

2. The relevant facts, which are largely undisputed, may be noted at the outset. Respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up various posts, including 496 posts of Arogya Sevak (Female). The advertisement clearly stipulated that the essential educational qualification for the said post was possession of a diploma in Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (ANM), together with registration with the Maharashtra Nursing Council, Vidarbha Nursing Council, or eligibility for such registration. The petitioner, claiming herself to be eligible, submitted her online application and appeared for the written examination conducted on 19.07.2024. She secured sufficient marks and her name appeared at Serial No. 34 in the combined merit list. Thereafter, she was called for document verification on 11.09.2024. Upon completion of the verification process, the respondent authorities published two lists, one of selected candidates and another of disqualified candidates. The petitioner’s name appeared in the list of disqualified candidates on the ground that she did not possess the qualification of ANM but held a diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM).

3. The petitioner’s grievance is that despite qualifying in the written examination and being registered with the Maharashtra Nursing Council, her candidature has been rejected solely because she holds a GNM diploma instead of an ANM diploma. According to the petitioner, such disqualification is arbitrary and illegal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the qualification of GNM is higher and superior to ANM and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been treated as eligible. It was argued that admission to the GNM course requires completion of the 12^th standard, whereas admission to the ANM course requires only completion of the 10^th standard, which itself indicates that GNM is a higher qualification. Reliance was placed on the definitions contained in Section 2(k) of the Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966 and Sections 2(7) and 2(8) of the Bombay Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1949 to contend that a person registered as a nurse or midwife is competent to perform functions which include those performed by an auxiliary nurse midwife. It was further submitted that once the petitioner is registered with the Nursing Council, she cannot be excluded from consideration for the post in question. Learned counsel thus urged that the action of the respondents defeats merit and deserves interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned AGP appearing for the State and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the re