1 wp 8115.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 8115 OF 2026 ( Sau. Manisha Mohan Amte @ Ku. Manisha Laxmanrao Khadse ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Mumbai 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. H.V. Dhage, Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. K.H. Bhondge, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATED : 7 th OCTOBER, 2026 The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing and setting aside of the decision taken by respondent No.5 cancelling the Primary Selection List dated 24.07.2025, as communicated vide communication/order No. ICDSS/Morshi/Est/568/2025 dated 29.08.2025. The petitioner further seeks quashing and setting aside of the fresh advertisement/corrigendum No. ICDSS/Morshi/Est/847/2026 dated 21.09.2026 issued by respondent No.5 for filling up the post of Anganwadi Helper (Madatnis) at Anganwadi Centre No.2, Riddhpur, Tahsil Morshi, District Amravati, by a minority/Urdu-speaking candidate, along with consequential and ancillary reliefs. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No.5 for the post of Anganwadi Helper (Madatnis) at Anganwadi Centre No.2, Riddhpur, Tahsil Morshi, District Amravati. Upon completion of the 2026:BHC-NAG:13351-DB 2 wp 8115.26 selection process, the petitioner was placed in the Primary Selection List dated 24.07.2025. It is submitted that, after publication of the said Primary Selection List, the Sarpanch as well as Members/persons residing in the village raised an objection contending that there was a substantial population of Urdu-speaking persons/children in the said area and, therefore, in terms of the language clause contained in the Government Resolution dated 02.02.2023, an Urdu-speaking candidate ought to be appointed. It is submitted that, acting upon the said representation/objection, respondent No.5 cancelled the recruitment process and thereafter issued a fresh corrigendum/advertisement providing for selection of a minority/Urdu-speaking candidate. The said action is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 submits that the selection process in question had not attained finality merely by preparation of the Primary Selection List. The petitioner, therefore, had not acquired any enforceable or vested right to seek appointment to the post in question. It is submitted that, in view of the objection raised with reference to the language clause contained in the Government Resolution dated 02.02.2023, respondent No.5 was justified in not proceeding further with the earlier selection process and in issuing the subsequent corrigendum/advertisement. 3 wp 8115.26 4. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material placed on record. 5. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent No.5 was justified in cancelling the Primary Selection List and initiating a fresh selection process by issuing the corrigendum/advertisement dated 21.09.2026. 6. It is well settled that mere inclusion of the name of a candidate in a select list or selection list does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment. Unless the applicable recruitment process has culminated in an appointment in accordance with the governing rules and policy, a candidate cannot claim appointment as a matter of right merely on the basis of his or her placement in a selection list. 7. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was placed only in the Primary Selection List. The selection process had not culminated in the issuance of an appointment order in her favour. Before the process could be brought to its logical conclusion, an objection was raised by the Sarpanch as well as Members/persons residing in the concerned village, specifically with reference to the language requirement contemplated 4 wp 8115.26 under the Government Resolution dated 02.02.2023. The objection was essentially to the effect that, having regard to the substantial presence of Urdu-speaking persons/children in the concerned area, preference ought to be given to a candidate conversant with the Urdu language. 8. It is not the case of the petitioner that, upon being placed in the Primary Selection List, an appointment order had been issued in her favour or that the selection process had otherwise attained finality. In these circumstances, the mere placement of the petitioner's name in the Primary Selection List, by itself, would not create an enforceable right in her favour so as to preclude the competent authority from reconsidering the manner in which the post was required to be filled in accordance with the applicable Government policy. 9. Respondent No.5, upon consideration of the aforesaid representation/objection, proceeded to invoke the language clause contained in the Government Resolution dated 02.02.2023 and issued the subsequent corrigendum/advertisement providing for selection of a minority/Urdu-speaking candidate. The said action is stated to have been taken in conformity with the policy governing the selection and appointment of Anganwadi Helpers (Madatnis). In the absence of any material demonstrating that the decision of respondent No.5 is contrary to the applicable Government Resolution or is vitiated by arbitrariness, mala 5 wp 8115.26 fides or any other jurisdictional error, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the same in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. 10. It is also significant that the impugned action does not amount to denial of an accrued right of appointment to the petitioner, since no such right had crystallised in her favour. The petitioner had only been placed in the Primary Selection List and the selection process had not attained finality. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that no case is made out for interference with the decision taken by respondent No.5 to discontinue the earlier selection process and to issue the subsequent corrigendum/advertisement dated 21.09.2026 in accordance with the language clause contained in the Government Resolution dated 02.02.2023. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.) adgokar Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 07/10/2026 17:15:41