THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28120 of 2010 ORDER: A notification was issued by the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Narsampet, 4th respondent herein on 15.09.2010 inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Workers for various places including Hatya Tanda, Hamlet of Papaiahpeta Village, Warangal District. The petitioner and the 6th respondent alone appeared. The petitioner contends that the 6th respondent is not qualified, since she failed S.S.C. and still she was considered. She further submits that she secured 388 marks in S.S.C. and on account of the political interference by the 5th respondent, an unqualified candidate i.e., 6th respondent was selected. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit. The fact that the notification was issued and the petitioner and the 6th respondent appeared in the interview is admitted. It is however stated that in the course of interview, the selection committee had awarded more marks to the 6th respondent and thereby, she was selected. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 6th respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Though the 6th respondent is served with notice, she did not enter appearance. Serious allegations are made by the petitioner to the effect that the post of Anganwadi Worker was put to auction and since the 6th respondent agreed to pay higher amount, she was selected. Though the 6th respondent denied this allegation, she admitted that such an allegation existed in respect of the post of Anganwadi Worker for another village. That only shows the level of corruption that is taking place in the matter of appointment of inconsequential posts like Anganwadi Workers. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 24.08.2007 stipulating the guidelines for selection and appointment of Anganwadi Workers. According to it, a candidate must have passed S.S.C. It is only when the candidates, who passed S.S.C., are not available, that the candidates without such qualification can be considered. In the instant case, the 4th respondent has categorically stated that the petitioner passed S.S.C., whereas the 6th respondent failed S,S.C. The petitioner had placed before this Court, the detailed information furnished by the 4th respondent. It discloses that in the matter of educational qualifications, the 6th respondent was awarded zero marks, whereas in the interview, she was awarded the highest marks by the selection committee. This only shows the lopsided nature of selection being made by the selection committee. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the 4th respondent is directed to issue orders of appointment strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 24.08.2007 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 22.09.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28120 of 2010 Date: 22.09.2011 JSU