IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7710 of 2008 Between: Smt.M.Yogeswari W/o.Ramakumar R/o.Ganguvada village Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency,Srikakulam 2 Smt.B.Saraswathi W/o.Shankar R/o.Ganguvada village Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declarign the action of the 1st respondent in selecting the 2nd respondent as Anganwadi Worker ignoring the merit and experience of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory and consequently set aside the same and further direct the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi Worker on the basis of her merit and experience and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7710 of 2008 ORDER: The 1st respondent issued a notification, inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Ganguvada Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam Mandal. The petitioner and four others applied. The interview was held on 24.02.2007. The list of selected candidates was displayed on 19.02.2008. The 2nd respondent was selected a s Anganwadi Worker for that Village. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner states that she had functioned as Anganwadi Worker for a period of two years on earlier occasion and that she holds superior educational qualification. She further contends that she made a representation to the 1st respondent on 18.03.2008, pointing out the alleged defects in the selection of the 2nd respondent and complains that no action has been thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare. It is not clear as to whether there exists any statutory Rules or administrative instructions, governing the appointment of Anganwadi workers. The petitioner does not allege that the 2nd respondent is not qualified at all. The controversy is only about the relative merits, as between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The representation made by the petitioner to the 1st respondent would hardly be of any use, since he is the appointing authority. The petitioner can certainly make a representation to the District Collector, who, being the Head of the District Administration, can call for the records and decide the matter, after issuing notice to the 2nd respondent. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the District Collector, with necessary representation. The District Collector shall dispose of the representation, that may be submitted by the petitioner, within a period of three (3) months from the date of submission. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 10.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7710 of 2008 Date: 10.04.2008 JSU