A.Leema, v. The Director-Cum-Mission

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.18917 & 18918 of 2018 A.Leema ... Petitioner -vs1.The Director-cum-Mission Director Integrated Child Development Scheme No.1, Pammal Nallathambi Street Tharamani, Chennai 2.The District Collector Office of the District Collector Ramanathapuram District 3.The District Project Officer Child Development Scheme Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram 4.The Integrated Child Development Officer R.S.Mangalam Panchayat Union Ramanathapuram District 5.K.Kala ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records connected with the appointment order in favour of 5th respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 1896/A1/2017 dated 13.08.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner as Aanganvadi Assistant / Helper at Thiruthervalai Anganvadi Center on the basis of the interview held on 04.09.2017, within time time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Malaikani For Respondents :

Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate for R1 to R4 Mr.N.Gurusamy for M/s.T.R.Jeyapalam for R5

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 13.08.2018, passed by the third respondent, through which, the fifth respondent was appointed as Anganvadi Assistant / Helper at Thiruthervalai Anganvadi Center.

2. The petitioner, who also applied to the said post, but was not successful, has challenged the fifth respondent's appointment on the following grounds:

(a) The petitioner is better qualified to hold the post of Anganvadi Assistant / Helper at Thiruthervalai Anganvadi Center.

(b) The petitioner is a widow and the said fact has not been considered by the official respondents before selecting the fifth respondent as Anganvadi Assistant / Helper at Thiruthervalai Anganvadi Center.

(c) The petitioner was informed at the time of interview by the official respondents that she will be selected to the post of Anganvadi Assistant / Helper. But, however, despite the assurance, the official respondents have appointed the fifth respondent under the impugned order.

(d) The place of residence criteria, as prescribed under the recruitment notification, was also not

duly considered before appointing the fifth respondent as Anganvadi Assistant / Helper at Thiruthervalai Anganvadi Center.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the official respondents as well as by the private respondent (fifth respondent). They have denied the contentions of the petitioner. As seen from the counter filed by the official respondents before this Court, the following facts are brought to the notice of this Court:

(a) The petitioner and the fifth respondent were both 35 years at the time of the selection process as their date of birth was 27.01.1982 and 01.03.1982 respectively.

(b) Both the petitioner and the fifth respondent belong to Backward Class Community.

(c) The educational qualification of the petitioner is 6th Standard, whereas the fifth respondent has passed 8th Standard.

(d) The petitioner is a widow, but under the recruitment process, no weightage has been given for the widow.

(e) The place of residence of the petitioner is Six Kilometers from the place where the Anganvadi Center situate, whereas the place of residence of the fifth respondent is only 0.5 Kilometer from the Anganvadi Center and hence, the fifth respondent was preferred over the petitioner.

4. The aforementioned facts are not disputed by the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. No rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavits filed by the respective respondents stating the aforementioned facts. Therefore, it is clear that only based on merit and eligibility, the fifth respondent was appointed to the post of Anganvadi Assistant / Helper at Thiruthervalai Anganvadi Center under the impugned order dated 13.08.2018, issued by the third respondent.

5. Further, the petitioner is also not having the benefit of any interim stay of operation of the impugned order dated 13.08.2018, passed by the third respondent, despite the fact that this writ petition was filed as early as in the year 2018 itself.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 24.11.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk To:

1.The Director-cum-Mission Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, No.1, Pammal Nallathambi Street, Tharamani, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The District Project Officer, Child Development Scheme, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

4.The Integrated Child Development Officer, R.S.Mangalam Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

krk and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.18917 & 18918 of 24.11.2025