The court's direction to appoint the petitioner in place of the selected candidate was based on the principles of fairness and justice, considering the oversight made by the selection committee and the petitioner's higher marks in the interview.

JUDGMENT

Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - Writ Petition No. 28615 of 2013 is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

'....Issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 4 in selecting the 5th respondent to the post of anganvadai Worker in respect of Nakkalapalli Villavge, Beluguppa Mandal of anantapur District in the selections made on 29.03.2013 though the petitioner is meritorious than the 5th respondent in all aspect is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently set-aside the 5th respondent selection and appoint the petitioner in the place of 5th respondent in the interest of justice and to pass such other orders.'

Writ Petition No.34119 of 2013 is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

'....Issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to join into service for the post of anganwadi Worker to the anganwadi Centre, Nakkalapalli Village, Beluguppa Mandal, anantapur District as per the orders of the 4th respondent vide proceedings No.79/a/2010, Dated 21.05.2013 as bad, arbitrary, contrary to all canons of law and also offends articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of principles of natural justice and to pass such other orders'.

2. Since the facts and issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, I find it expedient to decide both the matters by common order.

3. For the sake of convenience, W.P.No. 28615 of 2013 is taken as leading case.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for the respondents.

5. The brief case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 28615 of 2013 is that she applied for the post of anganwadi Worker as per Notification dated 11.01.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent in Kalyanadurgam Child Development Officer, limits of anantapur District. The 5th respondent also made an application for the same post in respect of Nakkalapalli Village on par with the petitioner. Both petitioner and 5th respondent studied X Class and the petitioner secured 420 marks and 5th respondent secured 100 marks less than petitioner. Though the petitioner is meritorious in all aspects, the respondents 1 to 4 selected the 5th respondent for the post of anganwadi Worker in respect of Nakkalapalli Village, without following due procedure. Hence the petitioner made a complaint to the 2nd respondent, so far no action taken place. Hence this writ petition came to be filed.

6. Per contra, 4th respondent filed Counter denying all material averments and contended that the respondents called for interviews for the post of anganwadi Center and issued call letters to the petitioner and other five applicants. The petitioner/ U.Sudha secured 47 marks and V. Surekha secured 32.92 marks in the Interview. as per the marks awarded by the Selection Committee U.Sudha was selected, but unfortunately the respondent issued selection orders to V. Surekha on 21.05.2013 due to oversight and before correcting the said mistake, V. Surekha filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.34119 of 2013 and this Court passed an order dated 04.12.2013 directing the respondents that V. Surekha, Nakkalapalli has permitted to join duties pending further orders. as per directions of this Court, the said V. Surekha has joined as anganwadi Worker at Nakkalapalli on 28.12.2013. Pursuant to the said orders the respondents are unable to correct the mistake done by the selection committee and the same is subject to outcome of the final orders.

7. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urgent in the writ petition. Whereas learned Government Pleader for respondents placed on record the written ins