Mrs.Bharathi Devi, v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and W.M.P.No.8987 of 2018 Mrs.Bharathi Devi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector Tiruvannamalai.

2.The Block Development Officer Arani.

3.Mrs.Lakshmi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the file of the 1st respondent's notification published in WWW.TIRUVANNAMALAI.NIC.IN dated 19.01.2018 and quash the same pertaining to selection of the 3rd respondent in Serial No.753 and further direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Primary Anganwadi Worker.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy For Mr.SU.Srinivasan For R1 & R2 : Mr.V.Arun Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.K.Karthik Jaganath Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar

O R D E R

The appointment of the 3rd respondent as Anganwadi Worker is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that she had participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. She had submitted all the relevant documents and performed well in the interview conducted by the Selection Committee. However, the 3rd respondent, who is lesser qualified and scored lesser marks was selected and appointed. The petitioner states that she falls under the category of Destitute Widow and due weightage were not granted by the authorities in the process of selection. Thus, the order of appointment of the 3rd respondent is to be quashed.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, pursuant to the interim direction issued by this Court, verified the correctness of the selection and furnished the marks statement assigned by the Interview Committee members. As per the marks awarded by the Selection Committee, the petitioner Smt.Bharathi Devi scored 38 marks and 3rd respondent Smt.S.Lakshmi scored 46 marks. Thus, the 3rd respondent was selected and appointed.

4. Regarding the merit assessments made by the Selection Committee, High Court cannot intervene, unless such assessment was made in violation of rules or tainted with the allegations of mala fides or corrupt activities are established. In the present case, the 3rd respondent scored more marks than the writ petitioner and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 08.11.2022 Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order To 1.The District Collector Tiruvannamalai.

2.The Block Development Officer Arani.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Jeni 08.11.2022