IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7370 of 2009 Between: Pikkili Masthanamma W/o. Barige Venkateswarlu R/o. Yadavalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 The Project Director District Women & Child Development Corporation Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Child Development Project Officer ICDS Project Markapur, Prakasam District. 4 Smt. Akulamma Rajeshwari W/o. Venkata Narsaiah R/o. Nellore Town & District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.A.VARALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in appointing respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker of Yadavalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare. The petitioner and respondent No.4 applied for the post of Anganwadi worker of Yadavalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District. While the petitioner claims to be the resident of the said Village, she alleges that respondent No.4 left the said Village along with her family 8 years back and is residing in Nellore Town and that neither her name nor the names of her family members find a place in the voters list of Kanigiri Constituency. The petitioner’s grievance is that though a detailed representation was given to respondent No.1 on 26.01.2009 pointing out the above-mentioned fact, he has not taken any action. At the hearing, Smt. A.Varalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the pre-requisites for appointment of Anganwadi worker is that the candidate must be the resident of the Village for which the appointment is made and that since respondent No.4 does not belong to the said place, her appointment is vitiated. As the petitioner’s grievance is innocuous, in the sense that respondent No.1 has not disposed of her representation, I feel that it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.4 before disposing of this writ petition. It is for respondent No.1 to decide on the nativity of respondent No.4 and redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of representation, dated 26.01.2009 said to have been filed by the petitioner, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that respondent No.1 shall not pass any order adverse to the interests of respondent No.4, without notice to her. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.9662 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th APRIL, 2009. kvni