THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009. Writ Petition No. 5567 of 2007. Between: Vidavaluru Padmamma ……….Petitioner vs. 1.The Government of A.P. rep by the Prl. Secretary, Women Development Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others. ………Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No. 5567 of 2007. ORAL ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted for declaring the Proceedings dt. 4.1.2007 issued by the 3rd respondent-the Project Director, District Women & Children Development Agency, Nellore District appointing the 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker of Erubotlapalli village, Kaluvai Mandal, Nellore District, as illegal. The case of the petitioner is that she is a resident of Erubotlapalli village of Kaluvai Mandal, Nellore District and that she passed SSC examination conducted by the State Board of Education in the month of March, 2000 and when a notification was issued for filling up of various Aganwadi Workers in the District, she applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker of Erubotlapalli village and she has been subjected to interview on 30th December, 2006 and instead of appointing her as Angawadi Worker, the 5th respondent has been appointed. Further case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent is not a resident of Erubotlapalli village and she married one Srinivasulu Reddy, who is a resident of Ramaswamypalli village, Atmakur Mandal, Nellore District and hence she could not have been appointed as Anganwadi Worker of Erubotlapalli village. It is submitted that the very purpose of establishing the Anganwadi centres in various villages is to secure proper implementation of the welfare schemes introduced by the State for promoting health and hygiene amongst the women and children and hence, the Anganwadi Workers are required to be local residents as otherwise they will not be able to effectively carry on the duties of Anganwadi Workers. It is also submitted that the guidelines formulated have also specifically set out that only local candidates will be preferred, who are in the age group of 21 to 45 years and the person to be selected should also be a married woman. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the matter. It has been pointed out that for promoting literacy level amongst the school going children, especially who hail from rural sectors and also to promote nutrition, health and education amongst the women, various welfare schemes are undertaken and they are being implemented through the Women, Child Welfare Department and for securing the effective implementation of these schemes, Anganwadi centres are established at all convenient locations in the District and the Government have also constituted a Selection Committee for selection of Anganwadi Workers through their orders in G.O.Ms.No. 28 (Women Development Child Welfare and Physically Handicapped Welfare) Department dt.2.12.2004 comprising of the District Collector as the Chair-Person, the local MLA where the integrated Child Development Schemes are sought to be implemented and the District Medical & Health Officer and the Project Director of the Project and other members of the Selection Committee and that based upon the nativity certificate produced by the 5th respondent and based upon the claim that she is the daughter-in-law of a resident of Erubotlapalli village, she has been selected. The learned Government Pleader produced the record of the Selection Committee in this regard. The Selection Committee has noticed that the 5th respondent has produced a nativity certificate vouching that she is a resident of Erubotlapalli village. As per the record of the selections, the writ petitioner herein has only secured eight marks, whereas the 5th respondent has secured twelve marks and hence she was selected. But the fact remains that the Selection Committee could have verified the residential status of the 5th respondent prior to her selection. They merely relied on the nativity certificate produced by the 5th respondent. If it was known to the Selection Committee that the 5th respondent was not a resident of Erubotlapalli village but is a resident of another village, perhaps, there would not have been any occasion for the Selection Committee to have selected the 5th respondent particularly when the writ petitioner was one of the contenders for the very same post. In absence of any other contenders, perhaps a resident of neighbouring village would have been selected by the Selection Committee but when a local resident is willing to work as Anganwadi Worker and such persons is otherwise qualified and suitable for such selection, the Selection Committee ought not to have selected the 5th respondent. However, the fact remains that the 5th respondent has died during the pendency of this writ petition causing a vacancy of Anganwadi Worker at Erubotlapalli village. It is therefore appropriate for the respondents 1 and 4 to reconsider the entire matter in the light of the material, which the writ petitioner has produced now and take a decision, as the writ petitioner is only the other candidate who has competed for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Erubotlapalli village. A decision in the matter may be taken within a period of 30 (thirty days) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the writ petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 11.11.2009. Issue cc in one week. B/o. krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No. 5567 of 2007. Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009.