Aligi Janaki v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.7108 of 2016 ORDER:

The fourth respondent issued a notification on 08.09.2015 inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi helpers in respect of Anganwadi Centres in Narsannapeta and Polaki Mandals in Srikakulam District. The Anganwadi Centre in Thotada Village of Narsannapeta Mandal is one among them. The petitioner passed tenth class examination and fully qualified to apply for the post. She is physically handicapped and belongs to BC-B community. She is married and having two children. Her husband is an agricultural coolie.

She was interviewed on 14.10.2015. Along with the petitioner, another woman also applied for the post, but she did not possess the required qualification. In spite of interview, when no appointment orders were issued, the present Writ Petition is filed.

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the third respondent admitting the application of two candidates including the petitioner to the aforesaid post. It is also stated that the other candidate, who applied to the post, was not qualified as she was under-aged. Though the petitioner satisfied the conditions, she was not appointed, as she is a physically handicapped person and the post is reserved to OC(W) community. The relevant averments made in the counter affidavit are as follows:

"One of the candidates Bunga Santhoshi who applied for the post is not qualified for selection as she is underage. The application of petitioner who is physically handicapped is considered but she did not satisfy the conditions stipulated by the Government.

The post is intended to OC(W) community.

The post is not reserved for physically handicapped person. Since the committee felt that she did not satisfy the conditions stipulated the G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 06.09.2011 in case of disable persons and accordingly decided not to consider the application."

The respondents should have seen that even reserved candidates

are entitled to be considered against the post reserved for open competition. Admittedly, the petitioner is a woman. When there is a lone candidate and if she fulfilled all other conditions, she should have been considered, as the post was intended for OC(W) community. As per G.O.Ms.No.18, Department for Women, Children (Prog.) Disabled and Senior Citizens, dated 15.05.2015, in the parameters mentioned, the differently abled candidates were given five marks, and hence, there is no reason to deny the order of appointment to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to issue the orders of appointment to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 29.06.2016 vs