P.Chennamma, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District v. The Dist.Women And Child Welfare., Kurnool And 2 Others

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITON No. 12945 of 2007 O R D E R:

Respondent No.1 is ICDS Project, represented by its Project Director, Kurnool District. Respondent No.2 is the District Collector, Kurnool, on whose instructions, respondent No.1 issued a notification dated 10.02.2006 calling for applications to fill up Anganwadi workers in ICDS Project, Anantapur District. Since petitioner fulfilled with all the requisite qualifications as per the notification dated 10.02.2006, she applied for the said post. Thereafter, as per the proceedings of respondent No.1, she appeared for interview conducted on 05.03.2006. It is alleged that to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner, the respondent authorities appointed respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Worker. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that as per the recommendations of respondent No.2, and as the husband of respondent No.3 is politically influencial respondent No.3 was appointed as Anganwadi Worker. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.3 did not possess requisite qualifications as per the

notification dated 10.02.2006 published in the newspapers, respondent authorities ignoring all rules and norms arbitrarily appointed her as Anganwadi Worker by ignoring the petitioner's candidature, though she is fully qualified and eligible to the said post. Hence, she filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government for Women and Child Welfare Department. Perused the material available on record as well as the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that prior to appointing respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Worker, she used to work as Fair Price Shop Dealer and after appointing her, she resigned for F.P.Dealiership; and that respondent No.3 applied loan for Rs.

50,000/- under Rajeev Yugvasakthi, but the same was not sanctioned on the ground that she is working as Anganwadi Worker. So far as selection process to the post of Anganwadi worker is concerned, in the written examination, petitioner has secured marks, whereas respondent No.3 has secured 37 marks and obviously, respondent No.3 is more meritorious than the petitioner.

respondent No.3 is more qualified than the petitioner. More so, the selection process is purely on merit basis. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Having considered the submissions of both the parties, this court is of the considered view that the contentions raised by the petitioner are baseless and without having any documentary proof. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is clearly narrated that the selection process done by them to the post of Anganwadi Worker was purely on merit basis, and hence, they did not consider the candidature of petitioner for appointing to the post of Anganwadi Worker. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 27th September, 2018 Mjl/*