1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.1797 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 V.Thiraviya Ramu ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District,Madurai. 2.The Area Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Kottampatti at Kunnangudipatti Vilakku, Karungalakudi,Madurai District. 3.Rathidevi ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuance of the 1st respondent's order in br.K.e.f.vz; 1821/m1/2010 dated .02.2011 signed on 07.02.2011 by appointing the 3rd respondent to the post of Anganwadi Worker for the Moovan Sevalpatti Anganwadi Centre, Boothamangalam Panchayat, Melur Taluk, Madurai District and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Worker for the Moovan Sevalpatti Anganwadi Centre, Boothamangalam Panchayat, Melur Taluk, Madurai District and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 & 2 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganvadi Worker for the Moovansevalpathi, Anganvadi centre, Boothamangalam Panchayat Melur Taluk, Madurai District For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Sherbudeen For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P. for R1 and R2 Special Government Pleader, O R D E R The petitioner was not selected for being appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker in the centre attached to Moovan Sevalpatti hamlet, coming under the Boothamangalam Panchayat. 2.It is the admitted case of the petitioner that applications were called for. There are 6 candidates including the petitioner and the 3rd respondent participated in the interview and in the ultimate selection, it was the 3rd respondent, who was selected. Aggrieved by her selection and the petitioner’s non selection, the writ petition came to be filed. 3.The writ petition when it came up on 15.02.2011 the learned Special Government Pleader took notice for the official respondents and private notice was ordered to the 3rd respondent. Pending the Writ petition, no interim order was passed. On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 06.04.2011. 4.The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 18.04.2011 together with the supporting typed set of papers. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The grievance of the petitioner was that she is fully qualified to hold the post as she has completed Higher Secondary Course and also Diploma in Montessory training in the year 2007. Since the petitioner belongs to the same hamlet, namely, Sevalpatti, the selected person is coming from 7 to 8 kms. from the said Anganwadi center. Since the petitioner’s resident is only ½ km from the said center, she ought to have been selected. 6.In the counter affidavit the attack against the 3rd respondent being far away from the center is denied. It was stated that she also resides in the same village and since the selected candidate is residing within 3 kms radius she need not depend on the bus coming from Melur, she can go by walk or by two wheeler. She can reach within 1 ½ kms. Therefore, the allegation that she is not coming under the zone of consideration is denied. 7.The petitioner though in the reply affidavit denied the allegations that she has only produced an information obtained form the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai giving distance from Boothamangalam to Sevalpatti by the distance calculated through various stages provided under the Transport route. It is stated that from Boothamangalam to Moovan Sevalpatti is on the third stage and there are buses from Melur to Singampunari going via Boothamangalam. 8.It is not clear as to how such information will assist the petitioner, especially in the counter affidavit, it is stated that through a road distance is only 1½ kms. Ultimately, this Court has held that only in a selection process when the candidates are approximately equal, the question of distance route can be preferred vide judgment in P.Vasantha and others Vs. District Collector, Dindigul reported in 2007 (6) MLJ 402. 9.In the light of the same, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District,Madurai. 2.The Area Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Kottampatti at Kunnangudipatti Vilakku, Karungalakudi, Madurai District. +1cc to Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government pleader, SR.No.38425 nbj GH : 21.11.2011 : 2p/4c W.P.(MD)No.1797 of 2011 03.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/