IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3590 of 2007 Between: Mrs. Sk. Doulath, W/o.Mastan Basha, R/o.katheri Devarayapalli Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director, Women Development & Child Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector-Cum-Chairperson, Committee for the Selection/Recruitment of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers, Nellore. 3 The Commitee for the Selection/Recruitment of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers, rep.by its Convenor- Cum-Project Director,District Women and Child Developement Agency, Nellore. 4 Smt. J.Prameela, W/o.Penchalaiah, R/o.Kicheri Devarayapalli Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 3rd respodent appointing the 4th respodent as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center of Kacheridevarayapalli Village of Ananthasagaram Mandal, Nellore District in his proceedigns No.260/A1/2006, dated 4.1.2007, though the petitioner is more qualified as per the guidelines prescribed by the government and secured more marks than the 4th respodent as discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the said order and appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre of Kacheridevarapally Village of Ananthasagaram Mandal, Nellore District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 3590 of 2007 Oral order: Aggrieved by the orders dated 04.01.2007, issued by the 3rd respondent, namely the Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency, Nellore, appointing the 4th respondent as Anganwadi Worker in Kacheridevarayapalli village Anganwadi Center, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is more qualified than the 4th respondent, and as per the criteria fixed for awarding of marks, she is entitled to be awarded more marks, but the official respondents have awarded more marks to the 4th respondent, who is less qualified than her, and selected and appointed her as Anganwadi Worker. The official respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the unofficial respondent No.4 filed counter. To verify whether marks were awarded to the candidates as per the criteria fixed, this Court directed the official respondents to produce the record pertaining to the selection. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent appeared in person before the Court along with the record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the original record produced by the 3rd respondent, relating to the impugned selection made by the Selection Committee. On perusal and scrutiny of the record, particularly the marks awarded by the Selection Committee, it is seen that the petitioner in all was awarded eight marks while the 4th respondent in all was awarded 14 marks. The break up of the marks allotted to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, may be analyzed and noticed – The petitioner and the 4th respondent were awarded two marks each for qualifications, two marks each for age, four marks and five marks respectively for interview. Apart from the said marks, the 4th respondent was awarded three two marks for family planning and three marks for receiving Best Social Worker Award. That is how the petitioner came to awarded less marks than the 4th respondent, resulting in the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent as Anganwadi Worker. It is the contention of the petitioner that she worked as Volunteer in Akshara Bharathi-I and Akshara Sankranthi Programmes and that she also worked as Instructor in NRBC which is affiliated to Mandal Parishad Primary School, and she is entitled to be awarded marks for holding the said certificates, but unfortunately the official respondents have not awarded any marks for the said qualifications, and that if marks are awarded to the said qualifications, the petitioner would get more marks than the 4th respondent. Though the petitioner to evidence that she worked in the aforesaid programmes has filed xerox copies of certificates, but the fact remains, except the NRBC certificate, which is dated 04.02.2006 and contains signature and seal of Head Master of MPUP School, the other two certificates neither contain the date of issuance nor the seal of the officers who issued it. In such a situation, no fault can be found with the action of the Selection Committee in not awarding marks to the petitioner for holding the said certificates nor it would be proper for this Court to place any credence on the said certificates and direct the official respondents to award marks to the petitioner for possessing the said certificates. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the 4th respondent was awarded more marks than the petitioner, no exception can be taken to the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned order, selecting and appointing the 3rd respondent as Anganwadi Worker for Kacheridevarayapalli village. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cots. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 23rd December, 2008 KSR