1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.3346 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 K.Maheswari : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Child Development Project Officer, Natham, Dindigul District. 3.Pandichelvi : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the first respondent in his proceedings Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3603/A1/2009, dated 23.02.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr.N.Ilango For Respondent No.3 : Mr.M.Gurunathan ORDER ****** Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition challenging the order of the first respondent dated 23.02.2011, appointing the third respondent as Anganwadi Worker. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The case of the petitioner is that though she possessed all qualifications to be appointed to the post of Anganwadi Assistant at Vathipatti Child Centre, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District, the first and second respondents have chosen to appoint the third respondent. That apart, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is residing at Vathipatti and the appointment is in respect of Anganwadi Assistant at Vathipatti Child Centre and hence, she should have been selected for the said post, especially in view of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.203, Social welfare and Nutritious Meals Scheme Department, dated 19.08.2005. According to the learned counsel, the said Government Order speaks of appointing a person to the post of Anganwadi Assistant from the same village, where the Centre exists. 5. However, counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the first and second respondents, wherein it has been pointed out that the third respondent is a competent person to hold the said post and it has been decided in a Committee consisting of the District Project Officer, Dindigul, Block Development Officer, Natham, etc. That apart, the third respondent, even though, is residing at Rettiyapatti, it is within one kilometre from the Centre and hence, the third respondent has been selected for the said post. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent put forth the plea in consonance with the counter- affidavit of the first and second respondents. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 8. The petitioner challenged the order of the third respondent in appointing her as Anganwadi Assistant at Vathipatti Child Centre, Natham Taluk, Dindigul on the sole ground that the petitioner is residing at Vathipatti and hence, she should have been preferred over the third respondent as per G.O.Ms.No.203, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meals Scheme Department, dated 19.08.2005. As per the said Government Order, the post of Anganwadi Assistant has to be filled up from among the persons, who reside in the concerned Village. However, I am not inclined to interfere with the order appointing the third respondent for the said post for the following reasons: (i) Though the petitioner is residing at Vathipatti and the third respondent resides in the adjacent village, viz., Rettiyapatti, the distance between the said Village, where the third respondent resides and the Centre, is within one kilometre. It is stated so in the counter-affidavit of the first and second respondents, which is not disputed by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 (ii) Though G.O.Ms.No.203, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meals Scheme Department, dated 19.08.2005 contemplates that the post of Anganwadi Assistant has to be filled up by a person, who resides in the same Village, the said Government Order also speaks of appointing a person from the other village, if no suitable candidate is available in the same village. In the given case on hand, the Committee consisting of the District Project Officer, Dindigul, the Block Development Officer, Natham, the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Uluppakudi, Natham and the Child Development Project Officer found that the third respondent has to be preferred over the petitioner, considering the age, qualification, nativity and skills. (iii) It is not the case of the petitioner that the third respondent has been preferred over her out of malice. It is not even pleaded that with mala fide intention, the third respondent has been appointed. It is not even pleaded that it is a colourable exercise of power. 9. In view of the above stated position, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the first respondent dated 23.02.2011, appointing the third respondent as Anganwadi Assistant for Vathipatti Child Centre, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District. 10. In fine, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Child Development Project Officer, Natham, Dindigul District +One Cc to Mr.M.GUrunathan, Advocate, SR.No.19379 +One Cc to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.19683 SML rl/5c – 30.6.2011 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.3346 of 2011 Dated: 20.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/