IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12231 of 2008 Between: K. Nirmalamma W/o. Babu Naidu R/o. Sanjeevapalli Village, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector / Chairman, District Level Selection Committee, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency, Anantapur District, Anantapur. 3 Smt. Danamma W/o. Anjaneyulu, R/o. Sanjeevapalli Village, Nallacheru Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to o issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of impugned proceedings of the first respondent in proceeding No.1652/A/06, dt. 24.05.2008 confirming the earlier orders in the same file No.1652/A/06, dt. 30.01.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and being violative of Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Anganvadi worker to the subject village. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PRASADA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following ORDER: The Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency, Ananthapur District, the second respondent herein, initiated steps for appointment of Anganwadi Worker for Sanjeevapalli Village of Nallacheruvu Mandal, Ananthapur District. The petitioner, the third respondent and certain others submitted applications. A Selection Committee selected the third respondent and orders of appointment were issued on 30.01.2007. The petitioner filed W.P.No.3837 of 2007 challenging the orders of appointment of the third respondent. The writ petition was disposed of on 20.12.2007, leaving it open to the petitioner to file a representation before the District Collector, the first respondent herein, and the latter was directed to examine the same by issuing notice to the third respondent. Accordingly, the first respondent called for remarks from the second respondent and issued notice to the petitioner and the third respondent to examine the legality of the appointment of the third respondent. He issued proceedings, dated 24.05.2008, holding that the selection and appointment of the third respondent does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri M.Prasad Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though his client possessed superior educational qualifications and had experienced in the same post, respondents 1 and 2 have ignored the same. He submits that the view taken by the first respondent cannot be sustained in law or on facts. The learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare, on the other hand, submits that the appointing authority as well as the first respondent have examined the qualifications of the petitioner and the third respondent with reference to the relevant notification and, ultimately, it had emerged that the third respondent is better qualified than the petitioner. Anganwadi Worker is not a regular post and it is almost a part time assignment for rendering assistance to the children and women in a village. S.S.C. is the prescribed qualification. Another requirement is that the applicant must be a resident of the same village. In the event of any tie among various applicants, the age would be treated as relevant. From a perusal of the impugned order, it becomes clear that the petitioner and the third respondent are residents of the same village and in the S.S.C. examination, the third respondent secured higher marks. The fact that the petitioner studied Intermediate is of no consequence. Though there was a tie between the petitioner and the third respondent, orders of appointment in favour of the third respondent were issued, since she is elder to the petitioner by two years. The first respondent has examined the matter objectively and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a proposal to bifurcate the village for the purpose of deciding the area of working of Anganwadi Workers and in such event, the case of the petitioner may be directed to be considered. It hardly needs any emphasis that the case of the petitioner also deserves to be considered, in the event of any fresh appointment being made to an area carved out from the village. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:13.06.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}