1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.6924 of 2011 Manjula ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2.The District Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Sivagangai District. 3.The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Singampunari, Sivagangai District. 4.Kanimozhi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to cancel appointment of 4th Respondent and appoint the Petitioner as Anganvadi Employee at Vadavanpatty Anganvadi Centre Thirupathur Taluk Singampunari Panchayat Union Sivagangai District based on the Petitioners representation dated 23.05.2011 according to law. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthalraj For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja Government Advocate. ORDER The petitioner who is an aspirant for the post of Anganwadi worker in the Child Welfare Centre attached to the Vadavanpatti went for interview along with others. The interview was conducted by the District Project Officer, Sivagangai, Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Singampunari, Medical Officer, Piranmalai and Child Development Project Officer, Singampunari. 2. When the proposals were sent by the Committee and when the matter was received by the District Collector, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a strange prayer namely, there must be a direction to the second respondent to cancel the appointment of the fourth respondent and to appoint her as Anganwadi worker in the aforesaid centre based upon her representation dated 23.05.201. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. A perusal of the said representation found enclosed in page 16 nowhere states that as to how the fourth respondent was disqualified and what was the basis on which she came to know that the fourth respondent is going to be selected from and out of the names forwarded to the District Collector. All that she said was that the District Collector should consider all the qualification including the superior qualification of the petitioner as claimed by her. The other contention raised was that they have not prescribed any roster of reservation for Backward class, though she was belonged to backward community. In the absence of earmarking the centre for a particular roster point, the selection of the fourth respondent was illegal. Even otherwise, in the affidavit except by stating that there were 9 persons gone for interview, there is no other specified disqualification pleaded as against the fourth respondent. 4. On notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 29.07.2011 together with the supporting typed set of papers. It must be noted that the Anganwadi centres are also brought under the purview of the reservation vide G.O.Ms.No.142, P & AR Department, dated 14.10.2009. The Subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.142, the employment under the ICDS scheme were issued with reference to various posts vide G.O.Ms.No.149, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 20.11.2009, in respect of Sivagangai District, 55 posts of anganwadi workers and 77 posts of anganwadi assistants altogether, there were 132 posts have been reserved. Insofar as the Centre at Vadavanpatti, it came under general turn and therefore, there is no reservation for any particular roster point. In the counter affidavit, the report sent by the selection committee was also enclosed. The petitioner was belonged to backward class and the fourth respondent was belonged to a denotified community and except that the petitioner was +2 passed candidate and the fourth respondent was a 10th standard pass and both of them married and they are local inhabitants. In addition to the fourth respondent produced a ration card showing her residence in the same hamlet. In the counter affidavit, it is also stated that the committee found that the performance of the fourth respondent was better than the other candidates and they were not informed her case at no point of time that the candidature of the petitioner rejected on the ground of over aged as she is also only 29 years old. With reference to the reservation point, the appointments are made only under general turn. It is also further averred that the petitioner do not have any preferential right for being considered. 5. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.E) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2.The District Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Sivagangai District. 3.The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Singampunari, Sivagangai District. +1 CC to Mr.Na.Palaniyandi, Advocate (SR.No.40504) +2 CCs to Special Government Pleader (SR.Nos.40647& 40804) Writ Petition (MD)No.6924 of 2011 18.11.2011 sms NSV/1.12.11/3P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/