IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8147 of 2009 Between: M. Radhika W/o. R. Chandraiah R/o. Peddana Palli (Village), Peddanapalli Gram Panchayat, Kasipet (Mandalam), Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector / Chairmen DLSC District Level Selection Committee, Adilabad District. 2 Project Director, District Women & Child Development Agency, Adilabad 3 Child Development Project Officer, I.C.D.S., Lakshettipeta, Adilabad District. 4 G. Bhagyalakshmi W/o. Srinivas Allipoor (Village), Gudirevu Gram Panchayath Dandepalli (Mandalam), Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.JALAKAM.SAMPATH KUMAR Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning appointment of respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker of Peddanapalli Village, Khajipet Mandal, Adilabad District. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.4. The two grounds on which the petitioner questioned the appointment of respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker are that though the last date for making applications was 11-09-1997, respondent No.4 applied on 14-09-1997, but still respondents 1 to 3 entertained the said application and considered her case for appointment. The other ground is that respondent No.4 is not a resident of Peddanapalli Village for which the post is filled up, but is a resident of Somagudem Village. According to the petitioner, as respondent No.4 is not the native of the village proper for which the appointment is made, her appointment is contrary to the guidelines governing appointment of Anganwadi workers. The order appointing an Anganwadi worker is not amenable for appellate jurisdiction as no remedy of appeal is provided. As the issues raised in this writ petition are in the nature of facts, which are required to be ascertained and a finding is required to be given on the basis of the material to be produced by both the parties, it is not possible for this Court to conclusively adjudicate these issues of fact, by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I deem it appropriate that respondent No.1 shall decide these issues, after hearing both the parties. For this purpose, the petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation to respondent No.1, within a period of three (3) weeks from today, and on receipt of such representation, respondent No.1 shall examine the same. If he finds that appointment of respondent No.4 is contrary to the guidelines, he shall give notice to the petitioner and respondent No.4, give them an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order for review of the appointment of respondent No.4. He shall complete this exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.10654 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st April, 2009 vrn