THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.16100 of 2011 ORDER: 1. The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the third respondent in issuing notification dated 13.01.2011 inviting applications from the eligible candidates by not following Memo No.5771/K3/2006 dated 03.12.2010 issued by the second respondent as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Anganwadi Workers as per the Memo dated 03.12.2010. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioners are working as Anganwadi Helpers in different villages of Bhupalpally and Chityala Mandals, Warangal District for the last three years under the control of the third respondent. All the petitioners were initially appointed on honorary basis and they were being paid Rs.750/- per month. Subsequently, the said pay was enhanced to Rs.1200/- per month. While so, the Government had issued a circular memo directing all the Child Development Project Officers to fill up the posts of Anganwadi Workers with Anganwadi Helpers basing on their performance and eligibility criteria. All the petitioners made representation to the third respondent requesting to appoint them as Anganwadi Workers as they are eligible and qualified for the same. It is submitted that the second respondent has issued Memo dated 03.12.2010 directing all the Project Directors including the third respondent to fill up the vacancies of Anganwadi Workers with eligible Anganwadi Helpers. Without implementing the memo dated 03.12.2010 issued by the second respondent, the third respondent has issued notification on 13.01.2011 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Anganwadi Workers by prescribing the qualification and age limit which is contrary to the government instructions and memo issued by the second respondent. 3. The third respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit inter alia stating that through Memo No.A1/49/2011 dated 30.03.2011, the Project Director directed the third respondent to follow the instructions issued in Memo No.577/K3/2006 dated 03.12.2010 and that the same was received on 02.4.2011. As notification was already issued and several candidates applied for the posts and date of interview is also fixed, the matter was placed before the Selection Committee at the time of interview and informed about the Memo dated 03.12.2010. In the interview conducted on 07.04.2011 out of 15 Anganwadi Helpers who passed 10th class, the Selection Committee selected four Anganwadi Helpers as Anganwadi Workers basing on their performance. The petitioners were not selected, as the interview marks allotted by the Selection Committee as per their performance are less. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on the memo issued by the Director of Women Development and Child Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 03.12.2010 whereunder it is stated that the Government had issued instructions that if the Child Development Project Officer concerned satisfies with the performance of Anganwadi Helper, the Anganwadi Helper shall be selected as Anganwadi Worker. 5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that as per the guidelines in the G.O, the selection process was completed and therefore, he requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Notification was issued on 13.01.2011 calling for the applications for filling up the post of Anganwadi Workers. In pursuance of the said notification, several candidates have applied and the petitioners also participated in the selection process but they have not been selected in the interview as they have secured less marks. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that marks have not been specified in the notification and therefore, the question of awarding marks does not arise. Basing on the eligibility criteria only the persons have to be selected. 8. Petitioners have participated in the selection process and they cannot turn round and contend that selection process is not in accordance with the rules. For the purpose of making selection, the Selection Committee shall decide what is the criterion for selecting the candidates when several persons have applied for the post. So, that procedure cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the rules. In view of the fact that the selection procedure is not under challenge and as the selection has already been completed, no direction as prayed can be given. 9. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. K.C. BHANU,J Dt. 17.06.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.16100 of 2011 Dt. 17.06.2011