IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NOs: 2630 & 4717 of 2009 Between: G. Nageswaramma, W/o. Ranga Reddy, R/o. Kandulapuram Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, and Chairman of Selection Committee, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 Project Director/Committee convenor, District Women and Child Development Agency, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 CDPO (Child Development Project Officer), Bestavaripeta Village & Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not allowing the petitioner to join in the post of Anganwadi Worker of Kandulapuram Village as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to take the joining report from the petitioner and allow her to work as Anganwadi Worker of Kandulapuram Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for Respondents: GP for Women Dev. & Child Welfare WRIT PETITION NO : 4717 of 2009 Between: Gudise Kavitha W/o.N.Satyanarayana Reddy R/o.Kandulapuram, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector and Chairman of Selection Committee Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 The Project Director/Committee Convenor, District Women and Child Development Agency, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Child Development Project Officer, Bestavaripeta Village &Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 G.Nageswaramma W/o. Sri Ranga Reddy R/o.Kandulapuram Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus call for the records relating to issuance of impugned Proceedings No. 417/27/G8 dt. 24.01.2009, declare the same as illegal and arbitrary, causing irreparable loss and injury to the rights of the petitioner, set aside the same as such duly directing the respondents to pass necessary proceedings appointing the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Kandulapuram Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP for Women Dev. & Child Welfare The Court made the following : ORDER: Both these writ petitions can be dealt with together as they arise out of a common set of facts. When the Women and Child Welfare Department has established an Anganwadi Centre at Bestavaripeta in Prakasam District, under the Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Scheme, a notification has been issued on 01.09.2008 calling for applications from the eligible candidates. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.2630 of 2009, namely, Smt. G. Nageswaramma has responded to the said notification. The selection committee conducted interviews, selected her and issued orders dated 24.01.2009 appointing her as Anganwadi worker. She was also directed to report for duty within ten days there from. The said writ petitioner, accordingly, gave her joining report. But however, when the local M.L.A. Appeared to have raised some objection with regard to the selection process that was carried on, the writ petitioner has not been immediately entertained to duty. Consequently, the present writ petition came to be instituted. The second case i.e., W.P.No.4717 of 2009 has been instituted by Smt. Gudise Kavitha, questioning the orders of appointment dated 24.01.2009 issued in favour of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.2630 of 2009. The main plank of contention of Smt. G. Kavitha is that she has completed 21 years by the time the notification inviting applications has been issued. As per the notification, the candidates were required to have completed 21 years as on 6th September 2008. Since, the writ petitioner in this case was born on 6.08.1987, she had completed 21 years of age by 6th September 2008 and hence rejecting her candidature on the ground that she has not attained the requisite age alone is wrongful, and consequently the selection and appointment of the other writ petitioner is challenged. Learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. It is pointed out that the State Government issued orders through G.O.Ms.NO.21 Women Development Department, dated 24.08.2007, pointing out that the candidates are required to complete 21 years as on 1st day of July of the year in which the notification has appeared. Since the notification has appeared in the year 2008, the age of competing candidates will have to be reckoned as 1st July 2008. Admittedly, the date of birth of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.4717 of 2009 being 6.08.1987, she cannot be said to have completed 21 years as on 1st July 2008 as she fell short of a month and six days to complete 21 years of age and consequently she cannot become eligible to be considered for that recruitment. The confusion in this regard has arisen not due to the fault of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.4717 of 2009 but because of the inappropriate expressions used in the notification inviting applications. The notification states that the candidates are required to possess 21 years of age as on the date of the notification, whereas it ought to have mentioned as on 01.07.2008. In view of the policy decision of the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.No.21 Women Development Department, dated 28.04.2007, the age of the candidates is required to be reckoned as on 01.07.2008, the petitioner in W.P.No.4717 of 2009 having not completed 21 years of age, is not eligible to be recruited as an Anganwadi worker. At this stage, it is relevant to notice that the petitioner in W.P.No.2630 of 2009, who does not suffer any such disqualification, has since been entertained to duty from 7.03.2009. In my considered opinion, the action of the respondents in selecting the petitioner in W.P.No.2630 of 2009 does not call for or warrant any interference. On the other hand, the case of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.4717 of 2009 could not have been taken up for consideration as she has not completed the minimum required age of 21 years as on 1.07.2008 and hence the said writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Since the writ petitioner in W.P.No.2630 of 2009 has already been entertained to duty, no further orders need be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, W.P.No.2630 of 2009 is disposed of and W.P.No.4717 of 2009 is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.) 20th July, 2009 Js.