IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7093 of 2009 Between: Smt.Kodavati Rajeswari. … Petitioner And The District Collector/Committee Chairman, Prakasam District at Ongole and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Nagendra Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Panchayat Raj for R.1 to R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.422/A1/08, dated 8-1-2009 of respondent No.1, whereby respondent No.5 was appointed as Anganwadi worker of Badhapuram village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to order notice to respondent No.5 and await its service for the disposal of this Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioner, in short, is that though respondent No.5 does not belong to Badhapuram village, for which the post of Anganwadi worker was filled, she was appointed in preference to the petitioner, who claims to belong to the said village. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though on 9-2-2009 the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.1 bringingout the fact that respondent No.5, being the non-resident of the said village, is not eligible to be considered and appointed as Anganwadi worker, the said representation has not been considered so far. He invited my attention to the qualifications prescribed by respondent No.1 for appointment as Anganwadi workers, which show that married residents of the village concerned are only eligible for being considered for appointment. Having heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, I am of the view that the question raised by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition regarding the residence of respondent No.5 cannot be gone into and decided as the same being a question of fact. If respondent No.1, who is the appointing authority, satisfied that respondent No.5 is not a resident of Badhapuram village, for which village she was appointed as Anganwadi worker and she renders herself ineligible not being the resident of that village as per the prescribed eligibility criteria, he shall take appropriate action in this regard. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation said to have been filed by the petitioner regarding the non-eligibility of respondent No.5 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.1 shall issue notices to the petitioner and respondent No.5 before enquiring into the nativity and eligibility of respondent No.5 and pass appropriate order. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.06-4-2009 MNR