1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO. 141 OF 2011. SMT. SHRADHA S. VELIP …..PETITIONER. V/S DIRECTORATE OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND 2 ORS. …..RESPONDENTS. Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 7 h April, 2011. P.C.:- By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to quash selection process for appointment to Anganwadi workers. 2. The Petitioner has approached this Court by contending that under the Integrated Child Development Services the selection process for the post of Anganwadi worker was undertaken by the Respondent nos. 2 and 3. The Petitioner applied for the post. Respondent no.1 had declared the guidelines to streamline the appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers way back in 2005. It is the case of the 2 Petitioner that Clause 8 of the said guidelines mentions that Interview Board shall give due weightage to educational qualifications, social background and experience in addition to the performance in interview. 3. Petitioner put in her application alongwith other eligible candidates and they were interviewed by the Interview Board headed by Respondent no. 2. The Interview Board consisted of Block Development Officer, Medical Officer and Incharge of concerned project area. The Petitioner was one amongst 46 candidates and interviewed. She and one Pratima Pramod Chari were assigned marks and they score 58 and 55 respectively. 4. After the interview process was completed and offer of appointment was made to Pratima Pramod Chari, the Petitioner obtained required information and has impugned the process by contending that the criteria of “social background” has no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. Reliance is placed upon a decision of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Sukhvinder Kaur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported AIR 1974 HP 35. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar and others Vs. Shakti Raj and others rendered in Civil Appeal No. 923 of 1997 on 11.2.1997. 3 5. On the earlier occasion, we had directed learned Government Advocate to produce the record pertaining to selection process. The records have been produced and we have carefully perused the same. 6. Apart from the fact that interview process has not been questioned on the ground of malafides or discrimination but criteria evolved and the selected candidate having not been made a party, we are of the view that weightage given to “social background” has reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Ultimately, selection is for the post of Anganwadi Worker. The post of Anganwadi Worker has to be filled in the terms of the guidelines laid down and the procedure prescribed by Government of India. The Integrated Child Development Service is a centrally sponsored Scheme under which the six services of Supplementary Nutrition, Immunization, Health Check-up, Referral Services, Nutrition and Health Education and Non-Formal pre-school education are provided. The Integrated Child Development Service aims to improve health, nutrition and literacy of women and children. That Government of India has prepared this shceme and which has been implemented in all States including State of Goa. The qualifications have been laid down and it requires that candidate should be female, who should be a local resident of the area/village panchayat with 4 minimum educational qualification of 10th and 8th standard. Process of selection is by interview. As far as subject guidelines are concerned after having perused the circular dated 14.12.2005 we find that bearing in mind the object and purpose of the scheme the selection committee is to give due weightage to educational qualification, social background and experience, apart from performance in interview. That has some definite nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It cannot be said Anganwadi worker and Anganwadi helper recruited for Integrated Child Development Service should not have a good social background. Ultimately, child care and health so also integrated development, demand that Andganwdi worker is a person whose background is such that it would conducive to the integrated growth of the child as the candidate would have definite role to play upon appointment and it is the child which will be benefited with assistance of the worker and helper. Apart from educational qualification and experience necessary social background is relevant for finding out the awareness and maturity in appreciating and understanding the typical problems while working for integrated development of the child. For this reason, we are unable to accept the argument that this criteria is vague and arbitrary and having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 7. The Judgment of the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh 5 is clearly distinguishable. There, criteria was evolved while inviting application for admission to M. B. B. S. Course. The Division Bench found on the material produced that criteria of “political sufferers and social background” has absolutely no nexus to the object achieved, namely, to get, best candidate admitted to M. B. B. S. course. Since the selection of candidates must be basis to attract best talent, the reservation on the vague ground was rightly quashed by the Division Bench. In the context of admission to Medical college that the Division Bench held that person that the criteria is very vague and has absolutely no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. As far as reliance placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar and others Vs. Shakti Raj and others, Supreme Court distinguished the earlier judgment, namely, a person having participated in the process cannot then question it merely because he was unsuccessful and not selected. When discrimination has been made on the basis that the Recruitment Rules in question for the post of Patwaris, require that names were called from employment exchange. Entire procedure adopted was illegal, those who were already registered in employment exchange have therefore no opportunity. The process was clearly arbitrary and violative of mandate of Article 14 of Constitution of India as found in the facts of that case. In such circumstances even reliance on this decision is misplaced. 6 8. As a result of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. vn*