THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22606 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is an unemployed Scheduled Caste woman. The Project Officer, I.C.D.S., Avanigadda, the 5th respondent, issued a notification in September, 2009, inviting applications for selection and appointment of Anganwadi Workers for various centers in the District. The petitioner intended to apply for one such post. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.21 Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, dated 24.08.2007, prescribing the guidelines to be followed for appointment of Anganwadi Workers. One of the conditions is that the candidates should have completed 21 years and should not have crossed 35 years, as on first July of the year of recruitment. The petitioner crossed 35 years. The petitioner contends that as a matter of policy the Government has relaxed age limit in favour of S.C., S.T. and B.C. candidates, and such a facility is not provided under this G.O. She challenges the G.O., insofar as it does not provide for such facility. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Woman Development and Child Welfare. The appointment of Anganwadi Workers is under a scheme launched by the Central Government. Various aspects of the scheme, including the prescription of eligibility criteria, are issued by the Central Government from time to time, and the State Government, in turn, had issued the G.O., as a measure of adoption/implementation of the direction issued by the Central Government. It is no doubt true that the State Government has relaxed the age limit in favour of S.C., S.T. and B.C. candidates, in appointment to educational institutions etc. However, no one can claim relaxation, or exemption as a matter of right. The appropriate Government would take the relative factors into account and come out with a policy. There is no law, which mandates that the conditions as to minimum, or maximum age limit must be invariably relaxing in favour of a particular category of candidates. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.13.12.2010. GJ