IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7644 of 2009 Between: Namburi Rajani, W/o. Pavuluri Madan Mohan, R/o. S.L. Gudipadu, Sujatha Nagar Colony, Ballikurava Mandal, Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector/Chairman, The District Level Selection Committee, Woman & Child Welfare Development Project, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 The Project Director, District Woman & Child Welfare Development Project, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Santhamaguluri Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 R. Sridevi, W/o. Rajasekhar, S.L. Gudipadu (V), Ballikurava (M), Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR A.RAMA KRISHNA FOR MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: ---- The Court made the following: O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 24-11-2008 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he appointed respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker of Sujathanagar of S.L.Gudipadu Village, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District. The validity of the impugned order is assailed on two grounds, namely; that the appointment of Anganwadi worker is made for Sujathanagar Harijan Colony and that according to G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 24-08-2007, in respect of the posts of Anganwadi workers for the areas, where people belonging to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe communities live, persons belonging to the said categories alone should be appointed as Anganwadi workers. Admittedly respondent No.4 belongs to Backward Caste community and that while the petitioner is a resident of Sujathanagar Harijan Colony, for which the post is filled up, respondent No.4 is a resident of S.L.Gudipadu Village, which is about 1 kilometer away from Sujathanagar. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.4. The order appointing respondent No.4 is not an appealable one. Since the petitioner raised issues touching upon the facts, which are required to be verified, I deem it appropriate that respondent No.1, who is the competent authority, considers the grievance of the petitioner and passes an appropriate order after hearing respondent No.4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.1, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, respondent No.1 shall issue notice to respondent No.4 and after hearing both the parties, he shall decide on the eligibility of respondent No.4 for appointment as Anganwadi worker. If he finds that respondent No.4 does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, he shall review the order of appointment and pass an appropriate order, within a period of three (3) months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.10026 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 17th April, 2009 vrn