IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.4401 of 2010 and M.P.NOs.1 and 2 of 2010 R.Kalaiselvi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur. 2.Child Welfare Planning Officer, Sendurai Block, Sendurai Tk., Ariyalur. 3.Asothai .. Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Sa.Mu.AA,A1660/A1/09, dated 11.02.2010 and to quash the same and direct the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker on regular basis at the Namamkunam Anganwadi Centre at Sendurai Block, Ariyalur District and appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kalaichelvan For Respondents : Mr.N.Senthilkumar, AGP (Takes notice for RR1 and 2) - - - - ORDER The petitioner has come forward to challenge the appointment of third respondent as Anganwadi Assistant in the Centre at Namamkunam coming under the Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District. 2.It is seen from the records that the third respondent has been appointed by the first respondent District Collector by an order dated 11.2.2010 in the post of Anganwadi Assistant. For the purpose of appointment, an interview was conducted and on the basis of the interview, the third respondent was selected. The petitioner who was also a candidate has come forward to challenge the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment of the third respondent in this writ petition. 3.It is seen from the records that the petitioner, whose husband was one Rajendran, sent a representation claiming that she was working in the centre at Nakkambadi colony for three years doing the work of Cook. On 20.3.2007, for the post of Anganwadi Assistant, an interview was conducted and the petitioner had participated in the said selection. She was not selected. Therefore, she filed a writ petition being W.P.No.21535 of 2007, seeking for a direction to reconsider the selection made already. However, this court, by an order, dated 25.6.2007, disposed of the said writ petition along with another writ petition and directed the respondent to consider her representation in accordance with law. 4.It is pursuant to that direction, the respondent passed an order, dated Nil (November, 2007) stating that in Nakkambadi Colony Anganwadi centre, one Alamelu was appointed, who was a destitute widow. The said Alamelu was preferred on the ground that she had to take care of her father-in-law and mother-in-law and also belonged to the same village. Hence she was given the appointment. Insofar as the petitioner was concerned, she was informed that she has been given Rs.37000/- Government grant for constructing her house under the Indira Avas Yojana Scheme. Her husband is an agriculturist and doing agriculture in his own land. Since there was only one post available, Alamelu was preferred as she was more qualified and in the priority category. The petitioner was informed that as and when any vacancy arises, the case of the petitioner will also be considered in accordance with the rules. The said appointment was not under challenge. 5.In the meanwhile, the petitioner's husband, who was the Nakkambadi Branch Secretary of DMK party, started sending letters through the Members of Legislative Assembly/Parliament. Through that he informed that his wife was working in Nakkambadi Anganwadi Centre for three years without wages and therefore, she should be considered for the post on priority basis. Her husband was informed by the authorities that whenever any vacancy arose, advertisement will be given in Tamil Daily Newspapers and if a proper application is made, in accordance with the rules she will be given preference for appointment. It was thereafter, the petitioner made an application for the post at Namamkunam centre. She stated that she had not been given the preference while filling up the post and the appointment of the third respondent was illegal. She also made a vague reference that though the post required candidates within the age group of 25 to 40 years and the third respondent was more than 40 years old. When asked for proof for making that assertion, she was unable to produce any such age proof. She states that she lives within 1 Km. from the Anganwadi centre. When she had attended the interview on 09.02.2010, she was not selected. 6.It was claimed that the third respondent's appointment was to satisfy the local political person ignoring the guidelines. The petitioner could not pinpoint as to how the third respondent was disqualified from being appointed. In the guidelines, dated 20.7.1994, age limit has been prescribed between 25 and 40 years. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner could not file any proof that the third respondent was disqualified. In the same guidelines, it was stated that all below poverty candidates living closure to the Centre will be qualified to apply. In the present case, while the third respondent lives in the same village, where the present centre is situated, the petitioner belonged to neighbouring hamlet, i.e. Nakkambadi Post. Though that cannot be a disqualification, the petitioner having undergone the selection test and was not selected, she cannot rely upon a previous communication, in which it was indicated that she will be given preference. The post is being a public employment, no such assurance can be given de hors the Government guidelines. 7.The question of preference must be specified in the Government guidelines and cannot be snatched by pressurizing the District Collector through correspondence made by MLA/MP belonging to the petitioner's husband's party. On the other hand, when the petitioner make an allegation that the appointment of third respondent was done through political pressure, little she realized that she herself through her husband, (who was the Branch Secretary of the local ruling party), brought pressure on the District Collector by sending representations through their MLA/MP. In the absence of the State Government prescribing any preference, the authority below cannot give any false assurance to the petitioner. This Court do not find that the third respondent was in any way disqualified from being appointed. 8.In view of the above, the contentions raised by the petitioner are not sustainable. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar vvk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The District Collector, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur. 2.Child Welfare Planning Officer, Sendurai Block, Sendurai Tk., Ariyalur. +1 C.c to Government Pleader Sr.No. 15110 +1 C. C to Mr.C. Kalaichelvan Advocate Sr.No. 14786 W.P.NO.4401 of 2010 04.03.2010 AKR – C.O https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/