IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19499 of 2007 Between: V. Prabhavatamma, W/o. Govinda Rajulu, R/o. 2/101, Kummara Kottalu, Badwel, Kadapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Project Director, ICDS, Kadapa District, Kadapah. 3 Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Proumamilla, Kadapah District. 4 B.V. Chinni, W/o. Venkata Reddy, R/o. 3/175, Surendra Nagar, B.V. Veerareddy College Mitta, Badwel, Kadapah District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in appointing Respondent four as Anganwadi Worker, Kummarakottalu, Badwel, Kadapah as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent one to respondent three to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker, Kummarakottalu, Badwel, Kadapah after setting aside the appointment made in favour of Respondent No.4 and pass such other order or other orders as deemed ﬁt in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.19499 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in appointing the 4th respondent as Anganwadi worker of Kummarakottalu village, Badwel Mandal of Kadapa district as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker of the said village. It appears, in response to a notiﬁcation issued by the 3rd respondent, petitioner as well as the 4th respondent applied for and appeared for interview for the post of Anganwadi worker of Kummarakottalu village. According to the petitioner, she is more qualiﬁed and also native of the village, but still the 4th respondent, who is not a native of the village, was appointed; therefore, the 4th respondent is not entitled for appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that according to the counter ﬁled by the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent is a resident of Door No.2/243 of Badvel town. But when the said door number was veriﬁed, it was found that no such door number is available and a certiﬁcate to that eﬀect was also issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer concerned. Therefore, the very counter ﬁled by the 2nd respondent is a false one. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has asserted that the 4th respondent was not the native of the village and she is not entitled for appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker and if the 4th respondent is eliminated on that ground, it is the petitioner alone, who is entitled for being appointed as Anganwadi worker. Under the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, petitioner is permitted to ﬁle a detailed representation before the 2nd respondent within a period of one month from today. On ﬁling such representation, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same along with the material ﬁled by the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, if necessary, pass appropriate orders, particularly as to the nativity of the 4th respondent, within a period of four weeks thereafter. If for any reason, the 4th respondent is found to be unﬁt to be appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker, petitioner’s case shall be considered, as per law. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be continued. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 09-9-2008 prk