THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3010 of 2008 ORDER: There is no representation for both sides. Having perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition raising grounds questioning the appointment of the fourth respondent, and the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the proceedings vide letter No.A/16/2006, dated 06.08.2007 issued by the second respondent appointing the fourth respondent as anganwadi worker of Fatheshapur Village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Warangal District. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that the appointment of the fourth respondent is questioned mainly on the ground that though the petitioner was awarded 10 marks having regard to the services of her as ECE Member, the fourth respondent, who secured 8 marks i.e. less than the marks secured by the petitioner, was appointed as anganwadi worker of Fatheshapur Village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Warangal District. It is the case of the petitioner that 10 marks were given to her having regard to her services as a member of ECE for four years. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, by the second respondent - Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Jangaon, Warangal District. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that there are no statutory rules for the purpose of making appointments to the post of anganwadi worker; that there is no weightage of marks for the services as EC Member and that G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 02.12.2004 does not give any preference to ECE Worker. It is further stated that in the interview conducted by the Divisional Selection Committee, the petitioner secured ‘0’ marks, whereas the fourth respondent secured 8 marks. It is also stated that the fourth respondent was given appointment as anganwadi worker having regard to her performance before the Divisional Selection Committee. Though the petitioner claims weightage of marks for her services as ECE member earlier, no material is placed to show the same. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that there is no such prescribed procedure notified by the respondents governing the appointments of anganwadi workers. Though it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner has secured 10 marks, in the counter-affidavit, it is clearly stated that the Divisional Selection Committee, which interviewed the candidates, awarded ‘0’ marks to the petitioner, whereas 8 marks to the fourth respondent. In that view of the matter, the fourth respondent was selected as anganwadi worker. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition warranting interference with the impugned proceedings appointing the fourth respondent as anganwadi worker of Fatheshapur Village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Warangal District. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th JUNE, 2010. kvni