IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29837 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ REJITHA KUMARI, W/O.THANKACHAN, MADU BHAVANAM, GOVINDAKUTTAM, PUTHENPALLI VILLAGE, DEVIKULANGARA PANCHAYATH, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DEVIKULANGARA PANCHAYATH, KARTHIKAPPALLI TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PUBLIC HEALTH CENTRE, DEVIKULANGARA, KARTHIKAPPALLI TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THAMBURATTI, KUMBINJISSERIYIL, GOVINDAMUTTOM P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. 4. SUBI, KUMARA BHAVANAM, GOVINDAMUTTAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. ADDL.R5. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MISSION, BAZAR ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. (IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 6/11/2009 IN IA NO.13716/09) ADV. SRI.M.AJAY,SC,NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MIS FOR ADDL.R5 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29837 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is against the selection of respondents 3 and 4 as ASHA in Ward No.1 of Devikulangara Panchayath and she seeks to quash such selection and appointment. A further prayer to require the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner is also sought for. 2. Ext.P1 is the notice inviting candidates to appear for selection process, which shows that Arogyasahayi volunteers, Members of M.S.S and those who work in Health Sector have preference. The other qualifications are also prescribed and the selection process consisted of an interview. The case of the petitioner is that she possesses four preferential qualifications where as the 4th respondent possess only three. In so far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, she possess five and therefore there is no challenge as against her. 3. As far as the challenge against the 4th respondent is concerned, it should be noticed that Ext.P1 provides only a preference and therefore unless the petitioner is able to establish WPC 29837/09 :2 : that she was equal in all other respects with the 4th respondent, she cannot by virtue of possession of four preferential qualifications claim any mileage over the 4th respondent, if she has performed better in the selection process. The possession of more preferential qualifications by itself does not entitle the petitioner to claim any superior marks. In this case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner and the 4th respondent were equal in all respects in the selection process in order to enable the petitioner to claim preferential right over the 4th respondent. Therefore, on the materials produced, I am not able to interfere. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp