HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI W.P. No. 10327 OF 2008 Thursday, the Eighth day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between Parvathi Devi Petitioner AND Project Director, District Women & Child Development Agency, Mahaboobnagar, Andhra Pradesh and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI W.P. NO. 10327 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The present writ petition questions the appointment of third respondent as Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Centre of Tangidigi village of Maganoor Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, even though her name does not appear in the select list ignoring the petitioner whose name figures at Sl. No. 70. The case of the official respondents, as can be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, is that though the petitioner was selected as Anganwadi worker of Tangadgi village and the same has been published on the notice board, but subsequently, the District Selection Committee resolved to appoint the third respondent in view of the guidelines issued in G.O Ms. No. 21 Women Development and Child Welfare Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department dated 24.08.2007 and, as such, the question of issuing the appointment order to the petitioner does not arise. Thus there is contradictory statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. The respondents, in one breath say that the petitioner was selected as Anganwadi worker for Tangadgi village and her provisional selection was also published and again controvert the same and say that the third respondent was selected in terms of the guidelines issued in GO Ms. No. 21 dated 24.8.2007. Be that as it may, the Apex Court in its recent judgment State of Orissa & Another Vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Others ([1]) in paragraph (15) has held that select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments and the vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. It is also observed that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment, that the empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the select list in question cannot be treated as a reservoir so as to draw the candidates therefrom and appointed. Following the ratio laid down in the above decision, the writ petition deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 8, 2010 MAS [1] JT 2010 (6) SC 33