IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 16391 of 2007 Between: G.Sridevi W/o.Laxma Reddy R/o.Kasipet V&M., Mahaboobnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Project Director, Dist. Women & Child Development Agency, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District 2 The District collector, Mahaboobnagar Mahaboobnagar District 3 The Project Officer, ICDS, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District 4 A. Mamtha W/o. Venkata Reddy Kashipeta village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in appointing the 4th respondent on 4.7.2007 to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Kesampet Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequentially direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker, at Kesampet Village & Mandal, as per merit with all consequential benefits by setting aside the appointment of 4th respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. M.R.TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.16391 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent as Anganwadi Worker of Kesampet Village, Mahaboobnagar District. It appears, the 3rd respondent – Project Officer, I.C.D.S., Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District, issued a notification in the month of February 2006, calling for applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker of Kesampet village, Mahaboobnagar District. According to the petitioner, she alone applied for the said post and was called for the interview scheduled to be held on 11.03.2006, but later the interviews were postponed by the respondent authorities for the reasons best known to them. Thereafter, another call letter was sent by the authorities calling upon her to attend the interview to be conducted on 27.10.2006, on which date 4th respondent was also present for the interview, but could not produce the required qualification certificates. While so, the grievance of the petitioner is that, though the 4th respondent has not applied for the said post and was not called for the interview initially scheduled to be conducted on 11.03.2006, which was cancelled later, and though she has not produced the required qualification certificates at the time of interview conducted on 27.10.2006, the respondent authorities selected and appointed her to the said post on 04.07.2007, after a lapse of about eight months from the date of interview, as per their whims and fancies. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent stating that though initially interviews were scheduled to be conducted on 11.03.2006 for the post of Anganwadi Worker of Kesampet village, pursuant to the notification issued by the 3rd respondent in the month of February, as per the instructions of the Director of Women and Child Welfare Department, Hyderabad, the same were postponed, duly intimating the same to all the applied candidates. Later, as per the instructions of the Director of Women and Child Welfare Department, Hyderabad, vide Memo dated 11.09.2006, another notification was issued by the 3rd respondent on 16.10.2006, pursuant to which the 4th respondent also applied for the said post. Petitioner, since submitted application pursuant to the earlier notification, was also called for the interview scheduled to be conducted on 27.10.2006 along with the 4th respondent. The petitioner and the 4th respondent alone attended the interview on 27.10.2006. After careful examination of the required educational certificates produced by both the candidates, the selection committee selected the 4th respondent for appointment to the said post and the same was approved by the District Collector on 28.06.2007. Thus, the allegations of the petitioner that the 4th respondent has not produced the required educational certificates at the time of interview and she does not possess the required educational qualifications are all false. Learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 also placed before the Court the proceedings of the selection committee, wherein it is shown that the 4th respondent has passed S.S.C. with more marks than the petitioner. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the appointment of the 4th respondent. The writ petition is in the nature of speculation, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 20th February, 2008. IBL To 1. Two CCS to 2. Two CD Copies