IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:1161 OF 2005 DATED:9.12.2010. BETWEEN: MULLU APPALA SURAMMA …PETITIONER. AND THE GOVT OF A.P. WOMEN DEVELOPMENT & CHILD WELFARE DEPT, SECRETARIATE, HYDERABAD & OTHERS. …RESPONDENTS. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:1161 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings Rc.No:63/ICDS, dated 27.11.2003 removing the petitioner from service as Anganwadi Worker of Madigapeta village, Ranasthalam mandal, Srikkaulam District and the consequential notification No:1/2005, dated 21.1.2005 calling for applications for the post of Anganwadi worker of Madigapeta village, Ranasthal Mandal, Srikakulam District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Anganwadi worker. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to invitation of applications for appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker, the petitioner made an application along with others and she was selected and appointment orders were issued on 22.10.2003 by the Chairman of the Mother’s Committee. The petitioner joined duty on the same day and executed work as directed by the authorities. Her honorarium was fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Pursuant to the selection dated 22.10.2003, the petitioner was directed to hand over the educational certificates and accordingly, the petitioner complied with the same. While so, by impugned proceedings, the Mother’s Committee was directed to remove the petitioner from the duties on the ground that she has not completed 21 years of age at the time of selection. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. The further case of the petitioner is that there is no stipulation in the notification that the petitioner who was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker, shall have to attain the age of 21 years and she has also not been provided any opportunity. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the petitioner who was appointed, was sought to be removed from service on the ground that she has not completed the age of 21 years at the time of appointment. This writ petition was admitted on 18.12.2005. The petitioner has also filed W.P.M.Ps.1509 and 1510 of 2005 seeking to suspend the impunged proceedings and also the notification, dated 21.1.2005. The said W.P.M.Ps were dismissed. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed contending that the petitioner has not attained the age of 21 years and as per the conditions of appointment, the age limit of a candidate should be between 21 to 35 years and since the petitioner has not attained the age of 18 years, she is not entitled for appointment. In view of the fact that no interim direction has been granted by this Court, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief at this length of time. Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Date:9.12.2010 Gurc. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:1161 OF 2005 DATED:9.12.2010.