IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25883 of 2008 Between: J. Pramela W/o. Prabhakar R/o. Katrapally (V), K. Samudram Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector / Charimen DLSC District Level Selection Committee, Warangal District. 2 Project Director, District Women & Child Dev. Agency, Warangal. 3 Child Development Project Officer, I.C.D.S., Mahaboobabad, Warangal District. 4 Ch. Sulochana W/o. Prashanth Katrapally (Village), K Samudram Mandal, Warangal District. 5 K. Shoba Gudepalle, W/o. Sanjeeva Katrapalli, K. Samudram, Warangal 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Official respondents in trying to appoint 4th respondent in petitioner's place who is not having eligibility and violative of the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.JALAKAM.SAMPATH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to appoint 4th respondent, who does not have eligibility to work in petitioner’s place, as Anganwadi Teacher, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner asserts that earlier one Jella Rani worked as Care Taker (Aaya) in I.C.D.S., and subsequently, as she fell sick, she resigned her job. On 14.10.2001, the Grampanchayat, Katrapalli passed a resolution recommending the petitioner’s case to the 3rd respondent-Child Development Project Officer to work as Aaya at Anganwadi Centre in Katrapalli Grampanchayat. As the petitioner has the requisite qualification, she was appointed as Care Taker on provisional basis and has been working as such since 1.6.2005 in place of Jella Rani. While so, the Women and Child Welfare Organization issued a Notification for recruitment to the post of Aaya/Mini Anganwadi Worker. In pursuance of the said Notification, the petitioner and the 4th and 5th respondents applied to the said post, and they received call letters for the interview to be held on 26.9.2008. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that though the petitioner is eligible to be appointed to the said post, respondents 1 to 3 are trying to appoint the 4th respondent by removing her from the present post. Heard Sri Jalakam Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare. Admittedly, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker by the 3rd respondent. In fact, the petitioner, the 4th respondent and others have applied to the post of Anganwadi Worker. Admittedly, as of today, no appointments have taken place, and it is only on apprehension that respondent 1 to 3 are trying to appoint the 4th respondent, by removing her, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. If respondents 1 to 3 make any appointments ignoring the merit, then she can question such appointment. Hence, the writ petition is premature, and is accordingly dismissed, However, if the Women and Child Welfare Organization issues any appointment order to the 4th respondent ignoring the meritorious candidates, then the petitioner is at liberty to challenge such appointment order by way of separate writ petition. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 26th November, 2008 bcj