ORDER : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs :- “(a) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the Respondent No.3 to appoint the Petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at Mota Desar Anganwadi-1 instead of the Respondent No. 4, in the interest of justice. (b) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the Respondent authorities may kindly be directed to vacant post of Anganwadi Worker for the Petitioner at Mota Desar, Anganwadi-1 in the interest of justice. (c) Any other arid/or further orders that may be deemed necessary in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.” 2. Heard Mr. Chintan S. Popat, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Pooja Ashar, the learned AGP for the respondent No.1 – State, Ms. Khyati Hathi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 and Ms. Dharti P. Ratani, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4. 3. By way of present petition the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the unreasonable action on the part of the respondent No.3 in appointing the respondent No.4 for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Village : Mota Desar Anganwadi- 1 for the proposed vacancy of one post in the advertisement. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is holding degree in the Masters of Arts and additional degree of Bachelor of Education, P. T. C., etc. and having experience as a Teacher for five years from June, 2008 to June, 2013 pursuant to the advertisement published on 31.7.2018 in the newspaper by the respondent No. 3 for recruitment for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Una Taluka. 5. The respondent No.4 herein is holding a degree of M.A. The petitioner being more qualified and residing in the same ward of Mota Desar Anganwadi-1 i.e. Ward No.6 the petitioner was required to be considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action the petitioner herein has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Chintan S. Popat, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner holds the decree in Masters of Arts and additional degree of Bachelor of Education, P. T. C., etc. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action the petitioner herein has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Chintan S. Popat, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner holds the decree in Masters of Arts and additional degree of Bachelor of Education, P. T. C., etc. and is having experience as a Teacher for five years from June, 2008 to June, 2013. The petitioner herein is also resident of Ward No.6 of Mota Desar Anganwadi-1. It is submitted that in light of the aforesaid, the petitioner being more qualified and residing in the local area falls within the purview of the advertisement issued by the respondent No.3 duly produced at Annexure-A dated 31.7.2018. 6.1 Reliance is placed on the application-sheet duly produced at Annexure-B (pages 14-15) and submitted that the name of the petitioner was at Serial No.9 in the said list and the respondent No.4 at Serial No.17 which demonstrate that the petitioner is more qualified than the respondent No.4. 6.2 It is also submitted that the petitioner resides in Ward No.6 of Mota Desar Anganwadi whereas the respondent No.4 resides in the Ward No.1 which is not included in the Anganwadi work. 6.3 Placing reliance on the advertisement duly produced at Annexure-A and Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009 it was submitted that the petitioner herein is residing in the Ward No.6 wherein the Anganwadi is situated, the petitioner ought to have been considered for the said post advertised. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it was submitted that in light of the aforesaid, the present petition be allowed. 7. Ms. Khyati Hathi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 placed reliance on the affidavit-in- reply duly produced at page-48. Placing reliance on the same Ms. Hathi, the learned advocate submitted that the Condition No.2 of the advertisement at Annexure-A to the petition states that the candidates holding higher educational qualifications were required to be given priority in the appointments and minimum educational qualification for the post of Anganwadi worker was that the candidate should have passed Standard 10th and for the post of helper (Tedagar) the candidate should have passed Standard 7th. 7.1 It was submitted that minimum educational qualification for the post of Anganwadi Worker was that the candidate should have passed Standard 10th whereas as shown in the statement, both the petitioner and the respondent No.4 are holding degree of M.A. It was submitted that both, the petitioner and the respondent No.4 are holding higher educational qualification and, therefore, the petitioner cannot make the grievance that she is holding higher educational qualification. It was submitted that there is no such condition in the advertisement that any experience will be considered as additional qualification or that the candidate having experience in service shall be given priority in the appointment. 7.2 It was submitted by Ms. Hathi, the learned advocate that it is not true that the respondent No.4 is not residing in the same ward of Mota Desar Anganwadi, therefore she is not entitled for the post. It was submitted that the Condition No.1 of the advertisement provides that the candidate should be resident of the concerned local village/ward. It was submitted that both, the petitioner and the respondent No.4 are resident of the same village i.e. Mota Desar in which Anganwadi center is situated. 7.3 Reliance is placed on the statement produced in the affidavit at paragraph-11. Ms. Hathi, the learned advocate relying on the same submitted that the respondent No.4 secured more percentage i.e. 60.85 whereas the petitioner herein secured 52.80 percentage in the interview for the appointment. Pursuant to the advertisement the interview committee had given appointment to the candidate, who scored higher percentage. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it was submitted that the contentions raised in the present petition may not be considered by this Court in view of the fact that the respondent No.4 being eligible for the post of Anganwadi worker was considered and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7.4 In the course of hearing, it was also submitted that the present petition challenges the action undertaken by the respondent No.3 pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.7.2018. It was submitted that three advertisements have been issued subsequent to the said advertisement dated 31.7.2018, therefore the cause raised in the present petiton rendered invalid and the petition can be said to be infructuous. 8. Ms. Dharti P. Ratani, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 adopted the submissions advanced by Ms. Hathi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3. 8. Ms. Dharti P. Ratani, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 adopted the submissions advanced by Ms. Hathi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3. Reliance is placed on the order passed in the Special Civil Application No.513 of 2017 dated 1.3.2017 wherein the said Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009 which is subject matter of present petition was subject matter of consideration in the said petition wherein it is held that the appointments for the post of Anganwadi worker are with respect to all the wards of village as a local unit for the purpose of Anganwadi worker. In light of the aforesaid, it was submitted that this Court may not interfere in the impugned order passed in favour of the respondent No.4. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the petitioner herein by way of present petition has prayed for a direction qua the respondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker at Mota Desar Anganwadi-1 instead of the respondent No.4 pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.7.2018 duly produced at Annexure-A. On perusal of the documents produced on record and the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and the Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009 which governs case of the petitioner. It cannot be said that the appointment of the respondent No.4 is erroneous in view of the following:- Both, the petitioner and the respondent No.4 are holding the higher qualification of Degree of M.A. The minimum qualification for the post of Anganwadi worker is 10th Standard passed. It is noticed that the said advertisement is silent with respect to any higher qualification or any other qualifications held by the candidate. Since both, the petitioner and the respondent No.4 were holding higher qualification which is undisputed, as per the Condition No.2 of the advertisement the interview Committee had given appointment to the candidate holding higher qualification as under :- Sr.No. Center No. Name of the candidate Educational qualification Percent Remarks 1 Mota Desar-1 Solanki Hetalben N. M.A. 60.85 Selection 2 Mota Desar-1 Bhaliya Ramilaben R. M.A. 52.80 Selection The aforesaid statement demonstrate both, the petitioner and the respondent No.4 are resident of the same village, same educational qualification, but since the respondent No.4 procured more marks then the petitioner, the former was selected by the Selection Committee. 10. 10. The Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009 was considered for subject matter of consideration in the Special Civil Application No.513 of 2017. It is apposite to refer to paragraph-3 of the order dated 1.3.2017 passed in the Special Civil Application No.513 of 2017, paragraph-3 read thus:- “3. The Court does not find any substance in the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr.Mohanan for the petitioner. As transpiring from the Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009, the appointment of Anganwadi worker was to be done amongst candidates, who were residing in a particular ward, village or street, however if the candidates were not available from the local area, then the District Development Officer could consider the candidates from the nearby places, to the place where the Anganwadi worker was to be appointed. The District Development Officer has clarified vide letter dated 22.03.2016 that in the case of recruitment of Anganwadi worker and Tedaghar worker, the concerned village was to be considered as a local unit. Hence, in view of the said Resolution dated 13.11.2009 and letter dated 22.03.2016, all wards of village were required to be considered as the local unit for the purpose of appointment of Anganwadi worker. In the instant case, though the respondent no.5 belonged to the ward no.5 of the same village, it could not be said that her selection was not made from the local area of ward no.8.” 11. In light of the aforesaid, the respondent No.4 herein has been granted appointment as Anganwadi worker having secured higher marks i.e. 60.85 then the petitioner herein. The Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009 provides that, any person residing in the village is required to be considered as the local unit for the purpose of appointment of Anganwadi worker. Under such circumstances, the respondent No.4 falls within the ambit of the advertisement issued by the respondent No.3. In absence of any jurisdictional error at the instance of the respondent No.3, this Court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No error can be said to have been committed by the respondent No.3 in granting the appointment to the respondent No.4. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and the same stands dismissed.