Adherence to appointment guidelines, particularly the preference for destitute widows and poor, SC/ST Minorities, and the specified age and educational qualifications, is crucial in the selection process.

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking the relief of a writ of certiorarified mandamus in calling for the records in Na.Ka.No.1656/A1/08 dated 11/10/2008 of the second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram and to quash the same and also resultantly, directing him to appoint the petitioner as "Mini Anganwadi Worker" for Patti (Posukudi) Centre.

2. Before dealing into the merits of the case, the factual back drop of the case is stated hereunder:

According to the petitioner, the Government by means of G.O.Ms.No.186 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department dated 4/10/2007 has accorded sanction for creation of 3,168 mini centres in Tamil Nadu. The first respondent pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, has issued the following guidelines in respect of appointment of "Mini Anganwadi Workers". They are as follows:

a. The candidate should be a female and preference should be given to destitute widows & poor, SC/ST Minorities as per the rules in force.

b. Age: 20 years to 35 years of age relaxation upto 40 years will be given to widows, deserted women and candidates in hill areas.

c. Educational qualification:-10th Standard passed.

d. Residential criteria:-Shall be residing within a distance of 3 Kms from the centre and in the case of non-availability of any local candidates, persons residing in a radius of 10 Kms shall be considered.

e. Mode of appointment:-Selection Committee comprising of District Program Officer, Child Development Project Officer and Medical Officer shall select the eligible candidates.

f. Appointing authority:-Eligible candidate selected by the selection Committee shall be appointed by the District Collector.

g. Honorarium:-As ordered in G.O.Ms.No.186, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 4/10/2007."

3. The second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, by his order dated 2/7/2008, directed the third respondent/District Program Officer, Ramanathapuram to fill up the vacancies for Mini Anganwadis in Ramanathapuram District. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 2/7/2008 called for filling up the vacancies. The petitioner has applied for the post of "Mini Anganwadi Worker" for Patti (Posukudi). A call letter dated 21/7/2008 has been sent to the petitioner for an interview slated on 25/7/2008 by the fourth respondent.

4. One Kalaiselvi, Vellayammal, Kamatchi, Sridevi, Kavitha, Maheshwari have attended the interview along with the petitioner on 25/7/2008. All the participants in the interview are from Most Backward Communities. The petitioners husband expired on 4/12/2007 and she is a destitute widow.

5. The second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, by means of his proceedings dated 11/10/2008 has temporarily appointed the fifth respondent for the post of "Mini Anganwadi Worker".

6. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that as per Government letter dated 20/3/2008, wherein guidelines have been issued, the petitioner should have been selected instead of the fifth respondent by the third and fourth respondents and on whose recommendation, the second respondent has appointed the fifth respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned appointment order dated 11/10/2008 issued by the second Respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, is against the basic rules for appointment to the post of "Anganwadi Workers" and therefore, it is not legally sustainable in the eye of law.

8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that preference ought to be given to the destitute widows and poor and the impugned order dated 11/10/2008 passed by the second respondent/District Collector in appointing the fifth respondent is against the guidelines issued by the first respondent dated 20/3/1988 and as such, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 11/10/2008 is to be quashed.

9. The sum and substance of the plea put forward on the s