IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26501 of 2008 Between: Smt. Kommu Prameela W/o. Badraiah R/o. S.C. Colony Chapalamadugu Village, Pullalacheruvu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 The Convenor Cum Project Director Women & Child Development Department, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Child Development Officer ICDS Project, Yerraguntapalem, Prakasam District. 4 Smt. Chiradala Rabika W/o. Srinu R/o.C. Kottapalem, Pullalacheruvu Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:K.ARUNA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:AGP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. M.BRAHMA REDDY ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in permitting respondent No.4 to appear for interview on 15.11.2008 for the post of Anganwadi Worker of S.C. Colony, Chapalamadugu Village, Pullalacheruvu Mandal, Prakasam District, without there being any interview call letter. In the affidavit, the petitioner averred that apart from permitting respondent No.4 to be interviewed without any call letter, on the influence of local Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), respondent No.4 was given more marks than that were given to the petitioner, though the former has inferior merit. In my considered view, this writ petition is thoroughly premature. Though vague pleas of mala fides have been raised by the petitioner, the local MLA against whom mala fides are attributed, is not impleaded as party to the writ petition. At any rate, I do not find any reason for the petitioner to rush to this Court even before a final decision is taken by respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the appointment of Anganwadi worker for the village concerned. If an illegal appointment is made, the petitioner is entitled to question the same on all legal grounds, which are available to her. But, I do not find any justification for preventing respondent Nos.1 to 3 from filling up the post of Anganwadi worker. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to consider the pleas raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and act in accordance with law in filling up the post of Anganwadi worker of S.C. Colony, Chapalamadugu Village, Pullalacheruvu Mandal, Prakasam District. If for any reason, the petitioner is not selected and appointed, she shall be free to question the same by availing appropriate remedy. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 04.12.2008 is vacated and WPMP.No.34697 of 2008 is dismissed. WVMP.No.126 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th APRIL, 2009. kvni