THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 19963 of 2009 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by the Sarpanch of Vodarevu Village, seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of Respondents 1 and 2 in appointing the 3rd respondent as Anganwadi worker without considering the representation of the villagers, as illegal and arbitrary. The writ petitioner has alleged that notification was issued in the year 2008 for appointment of Anganwadi worker for Vodarevu Pakala-2 area for which the 3rd respondent did not attend the interview at all, but she was still selected. The writ petitioner has proceeded to make various allegations against the 3rd respondent pointing out that she was in the habit of lodging false complaints with the police against the residents of the village and that subsequently, she would withdraw such complaints. To vouchsafe for the same, the judgment rendered by the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under Scs. & STs. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Prakasam District, Ongole in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2007 has also been relied upon. The writ petitioner, Gram Sarpanch, being a stranger to the process of consideration of candidature and the eventual selection of the 3rd respondent as an Anganwadi Worker, his locus standi to oppose the appointment of the 3rd respondent is in doubt itself. Further, it is worthy to note that the facts stated by the writ petitioner are also not correct. The Child Development Project Officer, Vetapalem, Prakasam District who filed the counter-affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent in the above case has clearly pointed out that notification bearing No. Rc.No. 13/A2/06, dated 11.02.2006 was issued calling for applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Vodarevu Pakala-2 Anganwadi center. It is also stated that one Smt. Paleti Anjamma and the 3rd respondent herein have both submitted their applications for the said post and that the selection committee headed by the District Collector conducted the interviews on 02.01.2007 and selected the 3rd respondent as she got highest marks at the selections. It is also clarified in the counter-affidavit that the upper age limit of 45 years insofar as a Scheduled Caste candidate is concerned, is to be reckoned as of 01.01.2006 and since the date of birth of the 3rd respondent, as is evident from her SSC pass certificate, being 01.08.1965, she is only 40 years of age as of the cut off date and hence, there is no illegality committed in the selection of the 3rd respondent. At page 8 of the counter-affidavit, the notification dated 11.02.2006 which is published in the local Telugu daily newspapers has also been enclosed. At page 9 of the paper book, a xerox copy of the selection process indicating the marks awarded to the respective candidates by the selection committee has also been enclosed to establish the fact that it is the 3rd respondent, who has secured more marks than Smt. Anjamma, the other candidate who has applied for the said post. I am satisfied that the 2nd respondent has followed the necessary procedure for selecting the Anganwadi worker and there is nothing illegal or improper about the selection process. Since the 3rd respondent appears to have secured more marks amongst the two competing candidates, she has been rightly selected and appointed. No exception is, therefore, called for to the selections. However, the grievance of the writ petitioner appears to be that 90% of the residents of the village, do belong to the Backward Classes and instead of a candidate belonging to Backward Classes, the writ petitioner appears to be upset, that the 3rd respondent who is a member belonging to Scheduled Castes has been selected for the post of Anganwadi worker. From the averments of the Writ Petition, one can visualize the veiled disguise employed by the writ petitioner. The prejudice entertained by the writ petitioner against the selection of the 3rd respondent is obvious. The Writ Petition therefore, lacks bona fides. It is obviously instituted to cause hardship to the 3rd respondent. The writ Petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed with costs. Costs are quantified at Rs.1,000/- and the same shall be paid within a period of 15 days before the District Legal Services Authority, Prakasam at Ongole. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the District legal Services Authority, Prakasam at Ongole, so that they will be in a position to receive Rs.1,000/- which is liable to be deposited by the writ petitioner within a period of 15 days from today. If the writ petitioner fails to deposit the said costs, the District Legal Services Authority should take such measures to recover the same from the writ petitioner. With this, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 29th July 2010 ksld