THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.20945 OF 2008 DATED: 17.12.2009 Between: Koppala Penchalamma … Petitioner And 1. The District Collector & Magistrate, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, Nellore. And 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.20945 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein who claims to have worked as Early Child Education Instructor in Kaluvai Harijanawada for considerable period, contends that she is entitled to be absorbed in the post of Anganwadi Worker in terms of G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the proceedings of the 1st respondent - District Collector – dated 3.1.2005 appointing the 4th respondent herein as Anganwadi Worker of Kaluvai Harijanawada and rejecting the petitioner’s candidature on the ground that she was unmarried and not the daughter-in-law of the village and above the age of 45 years. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Women Development & Child Welfare appearing for the respondents. As could be seen, it is the specific case of the petitioner that as per G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000, the petitioner’s services as Early Child Education Instructor shall be converted as Anganwadi Worker. Having considered an identical issue, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18585 of 2003, dated 12.11.2003 held that the petitioner therein who worked as Early Child Education Instructor was entitled for preferential treatment in the matter of absorption whenever an Anganwadi Centre was opened. Apparently, the District Collector, while rejecting the petitioner’s candidature under the impugned order dated 3.1.2005, did not take into consideration the preference provided to the Early Child Education Instructors under G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000. It appears that the petitioner’s candidature was rejected only on the ground that she did not satisfy the eligibility criteria under G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 20.07.1998. In the circumstances, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent – District Collector to reconsider the issue in the light of G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000 and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the petitioner and the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.17.12.2009 gbs