IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8385 of 2008 Between: Elugu Devamma, W/o. Sudarshan, R/o. H.No. 2-1-66/A, Kurannapet Village, Nirmal Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 2 The Project Director, District Women and Child Development Authority, Adilabad. 3 The Deputy District Medical and Health Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 4 The Child Development and Project Officer, ICDS Project, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 5 The Member of Legislative Assembly Nirmal, Adilbad District. 6 N. Pushpalatha, w/o. Rajeshwar, R/o. Kurannapet Village, Nirmal Mandal, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) declaring the action of the respondent authorities in appointing the sixth respondent as Anganwadi Worker in ICDS Project, Kurannapet Village, Nirmal Mandal, Adilabad District as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Art. 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice ii) to call for the records from the respondent authorities relating to the selection of the sixth respondent as Anganwadi Worker in ICDS Project, Kurannapet Village, Nirmal Mandal, Adilabad District and set aside the selection of the sixth respondent as Anganwadi worker; iii) to direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in ICDS Project, Kurannapet Village, Nirmal Mandal, Adilabad District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8385 of 2008 ORDER: The 4th respondent initiated steps for appointment of Anganwadi Worker for Market Area of Nirmal Mandal in Adilabad District. The vacancy was earmarked for SC candidates. The petitioner and six others applied. The interviews were conducted on 04-10-2007. The petitioner came to know that the 6th respondent was appointed as Anganwadi worker. The petitioner contends that she is more meritorious than the 6th respondent. Apart from passing SSC, she had undergone training as Bala Sevika, conducted by the Indian Council for Child Welfare, Hyderabad, and had gained experience as Instructor in E.C.E.C., Kotha Maddipadaga, Kaddam Mandal, Adilabad District, in 2000 - 2005. She contends that the 6th respondent was selected on account of the influence made by the local MLA, who is impleaded as respondent No.5. Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Selection Committee has deliberately awarded higher marks to the 6th respondent, though the petitioner possessed superior qualification, and vast experience. He contends that the entire selection process is vitiated, and that the respondents 1 to 4 have not even displayed the orders of appointment. Learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare, on the other hand, submits that the selection was made objectively; the committee consisted of several members, and there was no possibility for anyone, to become an exclusive factor for selection. The petitioner, 6th respondent and five others have applied to the post of Anganwadi Worker, which is reserved for SC candidates. The candidates are required to hold SSC qualification, and be the residents of the area. The relative merits are assessed in the interview, by a committee comprising of four officials and the MLA. For the selection to the post in question, the MLA did not participate. The assessment was made by four officials. The petitioners had enclosed the gist of the selection. Ex.P-6, filed by the petitioner, discloses that the 6th respondent secured 28 marks, which is the highest; the petitioner secured 23 marks, and in between both of them, another candidate secured 26 marks. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any legal, or factual infirmity in the selection made by the respondents. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BSJ}