IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20503 of 1999 Between: Pedamutti Durgamma, W/o. Late Veeraraju, R/o. Hukumpet, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector/Chairman ICDS, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Regional Deputy Director, Women Welfare, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The P.D.Officer, Women Welfare, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 G.Venkata Lakshmi, R/o. Hukumpet, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari 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 declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in appointing the fourth respondent for the post of Anganwadi Teacher at Hukumpet, of Gopalapuram Mandal, W.G.District as illegal and ultravires to the provisions of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India besides directing to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi Teacher at Hukumpet. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR FISHERIES Counsel for Respondent No.4 : MR.K.V.UPENDRA GUPTA The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20503 of 1999 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the appointment of 4th respondent as Anganwadi worker for Hukumpet village of Gopalapuram Mandal in West Godavari District. 2. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner made an application on 04.10.1998 to consider her candidature for the vacancy of Anganwadi worker for Hukumpet village. It is stated that her husband belongs to Dondapudi village, but as her husband died, she was residing at the place of her parents in Hukumpet, and that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category. It is her grievance that though she has got higher qualiﬁcations than the 4th respondent, ignoring her application dated 04.10.1998, the 4th respondent was appointed. 3. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of respondents. Denying various allegations levelled by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner did not submit any application on 04.10.1998 for being appointed as Anganwadi worker. It is stated that in terms of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.132, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, dated 26th August 1991, a Selection Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of District Collector for selecting the Anganwadi workers and the Committee has considered the applications of four applicants and appointed the 4th respondent. It is stated that as per the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner, Women Development and Child Welfare in Memo No.20888/K3/94, dated 09.02.1995, Anganwadi workers must be selected from the same village where the Anganwadi center is located and such person shall be acceptable to the community, and she must be a married lady, and her family must belong to the village community. 4. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was married to a person, who was a resident of Dondapudi village. Merely because the petitioner claims higher qualiﬁcations than that of the 4th respondent, by itself, is not a ground to term the appointment of 4th respondent, who belongs to Hukumpet village, as illegal, more particularly, when the selections are made by adopting a speciﬁc criteria notiﬁed for making such selections. From the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 26th August 1991, and the further guidelines issued in Memo No.20888/K3/94, dated 09.02.1995, I am of the view that the appointment of 4th respondent is as per the circular instructions and guidelines, and as such, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the appointment of 4th respondent. Though the petitioner claims that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category, but however, the vacancy that was ﬁlled up with 4th respondent, was not reserved for any particular category. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim any priority over respondent No.4. However, keeping in mind the statement made by the respondents in the counter aﬃdavit that they would consider the case of the petitioner while ﬁlling up the future vacancies of Anganwadi workers, I direct that if there is any vacancy as on today, in any of the Anganwadi Centrers for which the petitioner is eligible, her claim may be considered. 5. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st August 2008 ajr To 1 The Collector/Chairman ICDS, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Regional Deputy Director, Women Welfare, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The P.D.Officer, Women Welfare, Eluru, West Godavari District.