1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.3015 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 M.Subha Lakshmi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Child Development Planning Officer, Kallikudi, Madurai District. 2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.S.Amutha ... 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 pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings br.K.e.f.vz; 1821/ 1/2010 dated 07.02.2011 appointing the 3rd respondent as Anganwadi Worker Servaikkaranpatti Noonmeal Center and quash the same consequently direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Anganwadi worker of Servaikkaranpatti Noonmeal centre. For Petitioner : Mr.F.Deepak For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P. for R1 and R2 O R D E R The petitioner has filed the Writ petition challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Anganwadi worker of Servaikaranpatti noonmeal center vide order dated 07.02.2011. 2.The ground of challenge as seen from the paragraph 10(b) of the affidavit was that while the petitioner remains in the same village, the 3rd respondent do not reside within 3 kms from the center, in which, she was appointed. 3.Notice regarding admission was granted on 16.03.2011. On notice from this Court, the Programme Officer, Madurai attached to the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 28.04.2011. 4.In the counter affidavit in paragraphs 5 and 6 it was averred as follows: "5.I submit that even though the petitioner fulfills othercriteria like community, family are not employed in government; she has been rejected to appear for interview based on the lack of nativity proof. And also I submit that totally 14 candidates were called for interview based on the information furnished in their applications but on scrutinising the certificates 7 candidates were not eligible to appear before interview committee. The petitioner also one among 7 rejected https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 candidates. Remaining 7 candidates appeared before interview/selection committee. Among the 7 candidates only 4 members are fully qualified. Among the 4 most suitable hand Tmt.Amutha had been selected. 6.I submit that since the petitioner did not appeared for interview for not submitting proper nativity proof, she is not satisfying all standards prescribed for this post. As per the norms the selected candidate is residing within 3 kms radius only. The distance between the Anganwadi Center and the residence of appointed candidate Tmt.Amutha is only 2 kms. And also appointed candidate fulfilled the qualifications of age, education and community. 5.In the light of the stand taken by the 1st respondent, there is no case made out. Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed. Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(A.S) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR nbj To 1.The Child Development Planning Officer, Kallikudi, Madurai District. 2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 1CC To The Special Government Pleader SR No.38424 sb 24/11/2011 2p 4c W.P.(MD)No.3015 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/