THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.487 OF 2007 DATED 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN: Thydupati Subhadramma … Petitioner A n d The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District, and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.487 OF 2007 O R D E R The petitioner assails the appointment of the third respondent as an Anganwadi worker at the center situated in the SC, ST and BC Colony of Gundavolu Village, ignoring her claim. The Project Officer (ICDS), Rapur, called for applications for appointment of an Anganwadi worker at the SC, ST and BC colony of Gundavolu Village and notice dated 01.12.2006 was issued calling the petitioner, the third respondent and another candidate for interviews on 30.12.2006. The petitioner appeared for the said interview, but respondents 1 and 2 appointed the third respondent to the post ignoring her claim. Hence, the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that there was already an Anganwadi center in Gundavolu Village and the second Anganwadi center was notified at the SC, ST and BC colony, which was allegedly at a distance of one kilometer from the village. It was to this center that the subject appointment of Anganwadi worker was to be made. The petitioner claims that she is the only candidate residing in the said colony and that the third respondent, who is a resident of the village, ought not to have been selected. However, the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker do not require residence in the particular colony where the Anganwadi center is situated. All that is required is that the person selected should be a daughter-in-law of that village and should be resident thereof. There is no dispute that the third respondent fulfils this qualification. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as there were two Anganwadi centers in the village a distinction has to be drawn and only persons resident of the colony where the second Anganwadi center should have been considered eligible. However, there is no such requirement in the guidelines prescribed and it is not for this Court to read into the said guidelines something that is not there. As matters stand, the third respondent satisfies the qualification criteria in so far as the residence aspect is concerned and her appointment cannot be termed illegal on this count. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2010 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.487 OF 2007 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2010