IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 18482 OF 2011 Between: Smt P.Kmrun Bee …PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 18482 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Anganwadi worker in Rahamathnagar Anganwadi Centre, Punganuru Municipality, as arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the guidelines issued by respondent No.1 and consequently, direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi worker in the said center. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Helper (Aya) in Rahamath Nagar, Punganuru Municipality, by proceedings, dated 30.01.2006 on a monthly salary of Rs.500/-. The petitioner also underwent Orientation Training Prgoramme. On 07.01.2011 respondent No.3, issued a notification in the local newspapers inviting the applications for the post of Anganwadi workers. Pursuant to the notification, the petitioner applied for the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview by proceedings, dated 25.04.2011. Considering the seniority and eligibility, respondent Nos.2 and 3 appointed respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker to Rahamathnagar Anganwadi Centre of Punganuru Municipality. Without following the guidelines issued by the higher authorities, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appointed respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker to Rahamathnagar Anganwadi Centre of Punganuru Municipality. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and stating that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Helper on 30.01.2006 on temporary basis. Thereafter on 07.01.2011, respondent No.3 issued a notification inviting the applications for the post of Anganwadi Helper. After conducting the examination and interview as respondent No.4 got highest marks in the interview, the Selection Committee selected her as Anganwadi worker to Rahmathnagar Anganwadi center. As per the directions of the Selection Committee CDPO issued appointment orders to respondent No.4 on 17.06.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that appointment of respondent No.4 is contrary to the Circular instructions, dated 23.12.1998; that the cases of the Anganwadi helpers who are working at their centers have to be considered and hence, he prays to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that in the selection process, respondent No.4 secured more marks than the petitioner and so, question of appointing the petitioner does not arise and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. The Project Officer and Child Development Project Officer, Punganur, issued a notification calling for the applications for the post of Anganwadi Workers. In pursuance of the said notification, seven applications including the application of the petitioner were received and call letters were sent to the seven candidates for interview. Thereafter, the selection committee interviewed the petitioner, respondent No.4 and others who participated in the process of selection. In the selection process the petitioner got five marks, whereas respondent No.4 got 6.6 marks. As respondent No.4 got highest marks in the interview, the selection committee consisting of Development Project Officer, Punganur; Project Director, Chittoor; M.L.A., Madanapalli and Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli selected respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the CDPO and Project Director gave 2 ½ marks each to respondent No.4 intentionally to help respondent No.4 and if two marks each are deleted, petitioner would have secured more marks than the other candidates. Those two officers gave half mark each to the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the process of selection and now she cannot turn down and say that the procedure adopted in the selection process is incorrect and improper. Basing on the individual performance of each candidate, the Child Development Project Director, Punganur; Project Officer and as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer gave some marks to the petitioner. N o mala fides of whatsoever are attributed against two officers who gave higher marks than respondent No.4. Therefore, the question of giving consideration to the case of the petitioner for appointment in pursuance of Circular instructions, dated 23.12.1998, arises only when the petitioner and other candidates got equal marks. As respondent No.4 got more marks in the process of selection than the petitioner, the question of giving preference to the petitioner in terms of the circular, dated 23.12.1998, does not arise. Hence, there are no grounds to allow the Writ Petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J JULY 21, 2011 YVL