IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14046 of 2008 Between: Smt.D.Thriveni W/o.B.Ravi, R/o.Shaiksanipalli Thanda Uravakonda Mandal,Anantapur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector.Chairman District Level Selection Committee, Anantapur District. 2 The Project Director, District Women & Child Welfare Department ,Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 The Cc.D.P.O. (Chied Development Project Officer) I.C.D.S.Project,Uravakonda Mandal,Anantapur 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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly issue one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not issuing appointment orders to the petitioner for the post of Anganwadi worker of Shiaksanipalli Thanda, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapur District even though after the petitioner name was figured in the selected candidates list and even after the other selected candidates appointment orders was issued keeping the petitioners appointment orders is been illegal, unjust and consequently direct the respondent to issue appointment orders to the petitioner as Anganwadi worker of Shaiksaniaplli Thanda, Uravakonda Mandal,Anantapur District. Counsel for the Petitioner: KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14046 of 2008 ORDER: The second respondent issued a notification on 02.10.2007 inviting applications for the posts of Anganwadi Workers in various villages within her jurisdiction. One such post was in Shaiksanipalli Thanda of Uravakonda Mandal. The petitioner was selected for that post vide proceeding dated 15.02.2008. However, she was not issued the orders of appointment. She seeks appropriate direction in this regard. The respondents filed counter affidavit admitting the fact that the petitioner was selected as an Anganwadi Worker in the center mentioned above. It is, however, stated that the order of appointment was not issued to the petitioner in view of the representation made by the residents of Thanda. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was selected as an Anganwadi Worker and several candidates, who are selected along with her for other places, were issued orders of appointment. The only ground urged by the respondents for not issuing orders of appointment to the petitioner is that the residents of the Thanda represented that they want a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe alone. Basically, such a demand itself is illegal, untenable and divisive in nature. It is rather unfortunate that in the so-called advanced society, even in the matter of Child Care, caste elements are being injected. Instead of curbing such tendencies, the respondents have succumbed to them. This Court takes serious exception to such an approach. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to take necessary steps to enforce the selection of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 25th July 2008 RRB