Shobana, W/O. Naganathan, v. The District Collector,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.09.2018 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.20268 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.18038 of 2018 Shobana ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Ramnad District.

2.The Child Development Project Officer, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramnad District.

3.Vijayalakshmi ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 1st respondent made in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1896/A1/2017 dated 00.08.2018 and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Anganwadi worker for the anganwadi Centre at Child Development Project Office, Nagarikathan, Thiruvadanai Taluk.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Dhayalan Government Advocate

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Anganwadi worker for the anganwadi Centre at Child Development Project Office, Nagarikathan, Thiruvadanai Taluk.

2.Mr.S.Dhayalan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the official respondents. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent is residing at Chennai. Hence, in the post of Anganwadi worker for the Anganwadi Centre at Child Development Project Office, Nagarikathan, Thiruvadanai Taluk, she cannot be appointed, since one of the conditions attached with the application form is that the applicant should reside near by the Anganwadi Centre, for which the candidate / applicant applies.

4.When the mater is taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents would submits that the third respondent is residing in the nearest of place of the Anganwadi Centre.

5.It is not in dispute that after verifying the Adar card, Ration Card and other documents, the third respondent was appointed in the Anganwadi Centre. The contention of the petitioner that the the third respondent got married and stayed in a different place is disputed by the respondent on account of the fact that due to family dispute she is residing in the nearest place of the Anganwadi Centre. Since the third respondent has fulfilled the eligible criteria, she was appointed as Anganwadi Worker, Nagarikathan, Thiruvadanai Taluk and the same cannot be found fault with. Merely because she married a person from some other place, her candidature cannot be rejected.

6.In view of the above, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the order of the first respondent. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(PROTOCOL) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS IV) ta To 1.The District Collector, Ramnad District.

2.The Child Development Project Officer, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramnad District.

1CC TO THE SPL GOVT PLEADER SR 87175 1CC TO MR. D. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE SR 86968 DS RSK SAR 4 9 11 2018 2P 5C W.P.(MD)No.20268 of 2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 26.09.2018