THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.25653 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in not appointing the petitioners and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to appoint the petitioners in the place of the respondents 6 and 7 as Anganwadi Workers based on their marks secured in the SSC examination and other qualifications. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the respondents 1 to 5 appointed the respondents 6 and 7 as Anganwadi workers ignoring their claim though they are meritorious and eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi workers, whereas the respondents 6 and 7 are less qualified than them (the petitioners). It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the concerned MLA who was one of the interviewers arbitrarily gave more marks to the respondents 6 and 7 no marks were awarded as per the ages of the candidates who appeared for the interviews as prescribed in the orders of the Project Director dated (not given) (copy of it is filed) and hence there was discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the official respondents 1 to 5 and the MLA and therefore the respondents 1 to 5 may be directed to appoint the petitioners in the place of the respondents 6 and 7 canceling the appointments of the respondents 6 and 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7 has contended that in the writ petition, the petitioners challenged only the marks given by the MLA and in addition, they have not made the MLA as a party to the writ petition and therefore no order can be passed in that regard. On the other hand, uniformly no marks were awarded with regards to the question of ages of the candidates and there is no basis to say that any discrimination was shown in the process of selection against the writ petitioner. It is also contended by him that about more than one year age the corresponding appointments were given and consequently the appointees have been working within the department and the process of selection or appointments is not being questioned by any other candidate and hence the writ petition is not tenable. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as the selections were not done as per the orders of the Project Director with regards to awarding necessary marks on the basis of ages of the candidates and apart from that the MLA acted biasely while awarding the marks and there is plea clearly that the process done is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, that is sufficient to set aside the whole process of appointments. In fact, as per the selection process, the selections should be based on merit and out of the total marks of 100. The marks prescribed under various heads are as follows: 1. Educational Qualification : 70 marks 2. Age : 5 marks 3. SC/ST candidates : 3 marks 4. BC/Minority candidates : 3 marks 5. Widow/orphan : 2 marks 6. Additional qualification : 5 marks 7. Interview : 15 Admittedly no marks were awarded to any of the candidates as per their ages. Further, the total marks the writ petitioners and the respondents 6 and 7 got under various heads are as follows: the candidate Edn.Qln. SSC marks Max.marks for Edn. Qln. Age criteria (5 marks) Caste Criteria SC/ST/BC (3marks) Widow/ orphan (2 marks) Addl Qln. 5 mark CD PO PD DM & HO RDO MLA TOTAL ateshwari SSC 443 51.7 3 1 1 1 1 58.7 atamma SSC 412 48.1 3 2 1 2 1 57.1 ha SSC 391 45.6 3 3 3 3 3 60.6 a SSC 376 43.9 0 3 3 3 3 55.9 Significantly, all the officers who conducted the interviews, awarded each (3) marks to the respondents 6 and 7 and lesser marks to the petitioners in the interviews. However, when the petitioners are not questioning the marks awarded by those officers except the MLA, it makes it clear that those officers had awarded the marks to the respondents 6 and 7 correctly. In that context, when the MLA also awarded (3) marks as was done by the other officers in favour of the respondents 6 and 7, therefore, it cannot be said that he acted biasely in favour of the respondents 6 and 7 to the detriment of the petitioners. In any way, it is very difficult to say at this stage that the MLA did any mischief in awarding the marks to the petitioners and respondents 6 and 7. Further, it is to be very much emphasized that admittedly more than one year ago, the appointments were concluded and accordingly the selected candidates have been doing their respective jobs at their respective places. Further, there should be specific plea of conducting the process illegally for the purpose of taking necessary steps for setting aside the whole process. Further, when the petitioners are not specifically disputing about the other appointments and kept quite for more than one year, it is clear that they got no grouse in that regard. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the whole process of appointments is set aside, lot of injustice will be caused to all other candidates. Further, it cannot be done without adding the other candidates and giving them opportunity of being heard. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 13-12-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.25653 of 2010 13.12.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.25653 of 2010 Date: 13th December, 2011 Between: S.Venkateshwari and another. .. Petitioners And The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar district and others. .. Respondents