IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7703 of 2009 Between: Smt. Shaik, Mastanbi, W/o. Pakeersha, R/o. Elchuru Village, Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Prakasam District, at Ongole. 2 The Project Director, District Woman and Child Development Corporation, Ongole. 3 The Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Santhamaguluru, Prakasam District. 4 S. Mastanbi, W/o. Moulali, R/o. Elchuru Village, Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.SHANMUKHA RAO Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings No.13/A2/2006 dated 24-11-2008 issued by respondent No.1, whereby he appointed respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker of Elchuru Village, Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal and arbitrary. The validity of the impugned order is assailed on the ground that while ignoring the claim of the petitioner, who passed 10th class, respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.4, who studied only up to 9th class. According to the petitioner, when a person having higher educational qualification is available, respondent No.4 is not entitled to be appointed. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.4. The order appointing respondent No.4 is not an appealable one. Since the petitioner raised issues touching upon the facts, which are required to be verified, I deem it appropriate that respondent No.1, who is the competent authority, considers the grievance of the petitioner and passes an appropriate order after hearing respondent No.4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.1, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, respondent No.1 shall issue notice to respondent No.4 and after hearing both the parties, he shall decide on the eligibility of respondent No.4 for appointment as Anganwadi worker. If he finds that respondent No.4 does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, he shall review the order of appointment and pass an appropriate order, within a period of three (3) months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.10101 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 17th April, 2009 vrn