1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.6715 of 2011 T.Chinnaponnu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai. 2.The Integrated Child Development, Officer Viralimalai,Pudukkottai District. 3.The Project Officer, The Integrated Child Development, District Committee, Pudukkottai and District. 4.R.Chinnapponnu ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Se.Mu.Ka.No.283/2010/A1 dated 25.02.2011 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and further direct the 1st respondent to select the petitioner for the post of Assistant at Kumaramangalam Anganwadi Centre. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P. for R1 to R3 O R D E R The petitioner went for selection for the post of Anganwadi Assistant in the center attached to Kumaramangalam. In the interview held, there are 5 persons, who were interviewed for the said post on 20.04.2010. The Selection Committee comprising of District Project Officer, Pudukkottai, Child Development Project Officer, Veralimalai, Medical Officer, Veralemalai, BDO Panchayat Union, Veralimalai interviewed all the candidates and on being satisfied with the performance of the candidates, the petitioner’s case was rejected. It was found by the interview committee that the petitioner was 45 years old and therefore, she could not be selected. Challenging the same, the Writ petition came to be filed. 2.When the Writ petition came up on 27.06.2011, notice regarding admission was granted. On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. 3.In the counter affidavit in paragraph 5 it was averred as follows: "5.It is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner along with the candidates appeared for interview, it was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 held on 24.04.2010. At the time of interview the petitioner produced her age certificate i.e. Voter I.D., Ration Card, etc., relating to prove her age, residence and family status. According to the Certificates produced by the petitioner, it reveals that at the time of interview it appeared that she attained the age of 45 years. Therefore, the selection committee categorically rejected the petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Helper. ....." 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner however, produced a copy of the medical certificates issued by a Medical Officer showing that her age was only 35. But as noted in the counter affidavit, the petitioner produced a voter ID card, ration card showing her age. Therefore, it was well within the competency of the committee to take note of those statutory record rather than relying upon the medical certificate for accepting her actual age. 5.In the light of the same, there is no case made out. Even though the petitioner contended that the 4th respondent was residing in a village, which is 1.5 kms. away. In the affidavit filed, the 4th respondent’s address is shown only as Vadugapatty, Kumaramangalam. Though the petitioner states that it is only subsequent to the appointment, the 4th respondent shifted her resident. It is unnecessary go into the qualification or otherwise of the 4th respondent. It is suffice that since the petitioner is over age, her case has been rightly rejected. 6.In the light of the above, there is no case made out. Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector,Pudukkottai. 2.The Integrated Child Development, Officer Viralimalai, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Project Officer, The Integrated Child Development, District Committee, Pudukkottai and District. +1cc to Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, Advocate, Sr.No.38242 W.P.(MD)No.6715 of 2011 03.11.2011 nbj SMA/23.11.2011/5C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/