IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 345 OF 2010 AND WRIT APPEAL NO. 387 OF 2010 W.A. No. 345 of 2010 Konduru Suseela @ M.Suseela w/o Penchala Reddy ..... Appellant AND The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Women Development, Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents W.A. No. 387 of 2010 Konduru Suseela @ M.Suseela w/o Penchala Reddy ..... Appellant AND Achutha Prameela d/o K.Guravaiah and others .....Respondents The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Ghulam Mohammed, Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice) As both these appeals arise out of the common order dated 11.3.2010 passed in W.P. No.8621 of 2008 filed by the appellant herein and W.P. No. 22671 of 2009 filed by one Kambati Prameela, 5th respondent in WA No. 345 of 2010, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Briefly stated, the facts are that pursuant to the notification dated 30.12.2006 for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in N.V. Kandrika village of Chejerla Mandal, Nellore District, the appellant herein and Kambati Prameela - fifth respondent, have applied for the post. The guidelines set by the Union Government for the said appointment are that the candidate should be within the age group of 21 to 45 years and such selection shall be made by a duly constituted District Selection Committee headed by the District Collector. Since the fifth respondent was below 21 years of age, she filed WP No. 26675 of 2006 seeking to declare the action of the respondents there in not considering her case on the ground of age, as illegal and arbitrary. Notwithstanding an interim direction granted in her favour, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 12.3.2008 and as such fresh notification came to be issued on 3.4.2008 which was questioned by the appellant herein by filing W.P. No. 8621 of 2008 and in compliance of the interim order dated 4.9.2008 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 11432 of 2008, the appellant was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker. This appointment order is challenged by the fifth respondent by filing W.P.No. 22671 of 2009. The learned Single Judge by the common order impugned in these writ appeals, while vacating the interim order dated 4.9.2008 passed in WPMP No. 11432 of 2008 has dismissed W.P. No. 8621 of 2008 filed by the appellant herein and allowed W.P. No.22671 of 2009 filed by the fifth respondent Kambati Prameela, setting aside the appointment of the appellant herein and left it open for the respondents to notify the vacancies afresh and proceed with the selection in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India. Aggrieved thereby, these writ appeals are filed. Pursuant to the direction issued by this court, learned Government Pleader has produced the records. It is stated that the appellant herein has got 9 marks while the fifth respondent Kambati Prameela, has scored 11 marks. Evidently, the appellant was not appointed by the duly constituted Selection Committee but it is only pursuant to the interim direction passed by this court and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that her appointment is liable to be set aside. Having gone through the order impugned, we do not find any infirmity warranting interference. Hence, both the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, ACJ. _______________________ Nooty Rama Mohana Rao, J. October 31, 2011 MAS