THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.18767 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Questioning the proceedings in 415/A1/09 dated 04.03.2010 issued by the second respondent removing the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi, she filed the present Writ Petition. 2 The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are that pursuant to the notification dated 11.02.2006 issued by the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi worker for the Anganwadi Centre at Umamaheswarapuram village of Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District. The fourth respondent in this Writ Petition had also applied for the said post. The third respondent conducted selection process and found the petitioner as meritorious among all the candidates and eventually issued proceedings No.13/a2/2006 appointing the petitioner in the said post. 3 It is further submitted that thereafter the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 27.11.2009 to the petitioner asking her to submit her explanation as to why she should not be removed from office for the reason that she secured only 8 ½ marks in the selection process whereas the fourth respondent secured 17 ½ marks and that she (the petitioner) was appointed in the said post irregularly by influencing the then Project Director. The petitioner had also submitted her explanation. However, by the order impugned in this Writ Petition the petitioner was removed from the office. Hence the present Writ Petition. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without conducting any enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service and therefore it is liable to be set aside. 5 As seen from the impugned order dated 04.03.2010, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon her to submit explanation as to why she should not be removed from service on the ground that the petitioner who was appointed as an Anganwadi worker secured only 8 ½ marks by the then Project Director and that she influenced the Project Director and got appointment irregularly, for which the petitioner gave a reply dated 02.12.2009 stating that she does not know about the marks secured by her or about securing of 17 ½ marks by the fourth respondent and that question of managing the Project Director and influencing him does not arise. 6 There is no specific denial about the petitioner influencing the Project Director for the purpose of getting employment. It is a matter of inference that can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case that there is a possibility for the petitioner to influence the then Project Director to get the appointment. As the petitioner secured only 8 ½ marks in the selection process, she ought not to have been selected by the selection committee, but still, she was appointed. It is not in dispute that the fourth respondent secured 17 ½ marks in the same process of selection. In all fairness, the selection committee ought to have appointed the fourth respondent in the said post. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this court. 7 Accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J 19.07.2011 Kvsn