THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.27609 OF 2008 Dated: 16.11.2009 Between: Smt. K. Mangamma … petitioner And 1. The District Selection Committee of Anganwadi Workers, Srikakulam District, rep. by Chairman & District Collector, Srikakulam District and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.27609 OF 2008 ORDER: The 2nd respondent herein vide notification dated 30.09.2007 invited applications for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker o f Gollapeta Village, Amudalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. Both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein applied for the same. However, vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 1.9.2008, the 3rd respondent herein was appointed as Anganwadi Worker of Gollapeta Village. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending that the 3rd respondent, who is a resident of Nelliparthi village at a distance of 3 Kms from Gollapeta Anganwadi Centre is not eligible for appointment and the respondents ought to have rejected her candidature. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that altogether four candidates, including the petitioner, attended the interview before the District Level Committee. Basing on the performance in the interview, the 3rd respondent was selected by the Selection Committee. The allegation that the 3rd respondent is a resident of Nelliparthi village has been denied and it is stated that the 3rd respondent is a resident of Gollapeta village as per the nativity and residence certificates produced by her. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent on the same lines stating that she is a resident of Gollapeta Vilage, which is a hamlet of Nelliparthi Village. It is explained that the villages Gollapeta and Nelliparthi are contiguous and the allegation that she is a resident of Nelliparthi village is false and baseless. I have heard the leaned counsel for both the parties. As per G.O.Ms.No.21, Women Development & Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, dated 24.08.2007, under which the Guidelines have been prescribed for selection and appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers, the candidate should be a local married woman. It is also not in dispute that the selections are to be made by the District Level Selection Committee headed by the District Collector of the respective districts. Accordingly, the selection has been made in the instant case. The material placed before this Court by the official respondents shows that the 3rd respondent is a resident of Gollapeta Village. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that as per the reconstituted Voters list of Amudalavalasa Constituency (Assembly) the 3rd respondent is residing at House No.1-249 which does not fall within the village limits of Gollapeta. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader, while disputing the said allegation, contended that the selection made by the duly constituted Selection Committee on verification of the credentials of all the candidates attended the interview does not warrant interference. Apparently the objection raised by the petitioner involves a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into and decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, though the interference by this Court is not warranted, having regard to the assertion made by the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the District Collector, Srikakulam, who is the Chairman of the District Level Selection Committee along with the supporting material to substantiate her allegation that the 3rd respondent is not a local candidate. If any such representation is made within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the 1st respondent and after making the necessary enquiry with due notice to both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s representation. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.11.2009 gbs