IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4940 of 2007 Between: P.Lakshmikanthamma W/o.P.Anjanappa R/o.Puttagosula palli village, J.K.Palli post Amadugu Mandal, Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector and Chairman of the District Selecti Committee of Anganwadi workers./Helpers, Anantapur 2 The Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency, Anantapur 3 Smt.N.Nagaratnamma W/o.Anjaneyulu R/o.Jowkalakothapalli, Amadgur Mandal Anantapur District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent issued in Proceedings No.1652/A/06 dated 30.1.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker as puttagosulapalli village, Amadugur Mandal, Anantapur District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by one Smt P.Lakshmikanthamma, said to be resident of Puttagosulapalli Village of Ananthapur District questioning the appointment of the 3rd respondent as an Anganvadi Worker through the proceedings dated 30-1-2007 issued by the District Collector/Chairperson. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the 3rd respondent is not a resident of Puttagosulapalli Village, where the Anganvadi Center is established and hence the 3rd respondent could not have been selected or appointed by the District Collector and Chairman of the selection committee. It is not in dispute that as per the guidelines published, the candidate should be a resident of the Village and that the candidate should have passed 10th Class. However, the writ petitioner has not passed 10th Class. This apart, the writ petitioner has not appeared for the selection when the interviews were conducted by the selection committee. It is stoutly disputed by the respondents that the 3rd respondent is not a resident of Puttagosulapalli Village. On the contrary, it is asserted that she is resident of a village, which is considered as hamlet of Puttagosulapalli Village and hence such residents of the hamlet of the Village are also eligible to appear for the selection. It is further asserted that the 3rd respondent has passed 10th Class. For the reason that the writ petitioner does not possess the academic qualification which is needed and also for the reason that she has not attended the interview and the 3rd respondent being a resident of the hamlet of the same village and having passed 10th Class examination, she, in all respects, being qualified for appointment as an Anganvadi Worker, no exception can be taken to the order of appointment of the 3rd respondent issued by the Chairman of the selection committee-cum-District Collector, Ananthapur. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. But, however, without costs. _________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 3rd June, 2009. GRR