THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6595 & 6627 of 2007 Dated:31.01.2008 WP No.6595 of 2007 Between S.K.Thajeen …..Petitioner and 1.The District Collector/Chairman District Women and Child Development Organization, Nellore and others. …Respondents WP No.6627 of 2007 S.Suguna ..Petitioner and 1. The District Collector/Chairman District Women and Child Development Organization, Nellore and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6595 & 6627 of 2007 COMMON ORDER In these two writ petitions common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. It is the contention of the petitioners that they appeared for interview for the post of Angawadi worker along with others and the petitioners are meritorious and having experience in various fields and their experience was not taken into consideration and erroneously 4th respondent (s) was appointed as Anganwadi worker. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the procedure as required under the manual for appointment of Anganwadi workers has been followed scrupulously and 4th respondent (s) was appointed. Though the experience of the petitioners was not denied but at the same time, the 4th respondent (s) also pleaded that they are more experienced than that of the petitioners. Be that as it may be, the complaint is as to non-consideration of experience of the petitioners. The petitioners could not make out any case of illegality on the part of official respondents in not appointing them. The official respondents have categorically asserted that the guidelines issued in this regard have been strictly adhered to and 4th respondent (s) being more meritorious, they were selected and appointed. Therefore, no interference is called for. Heard both sides. I am of the opinion that unless and until the petitioners demonstrate that the 4th respondent (s) is not at all qualified for being appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker, no interference can be made into such an area of discretion exercised by the official respondents in selecting and appointing 4th respondent (s) since no specific allegation has been made against them. In view of the same, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed and the interim suspension granted shall stand vacated. No costs. ___________ 31-01-2008 rkk