Preference must be given to destitute widows in employment as per government guidelines, overriding other qualifications.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the appointment order issued in favour of the fourth respondent, and to declare the appointment of the fourth respondent as Anganwadi Worker at Keelarangiam Anganwadi Centre, Thiruppuvanam Block, Sivagangai District, as void and illegal, and also to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at Keelarangiam Anganwadi Centre, Thiruppuvanam Block, Sivagangai District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the she was a resident of Keelarangiam Village in Thiruppuvanam block, Sivagangai District, and she belonged to B.C. Community. Her husband died on 23.12.2014. She was doing coolie work. Being a widow, she was taking care of her father-in-law and mother-in-law, and also her daughter with meagre income from coolie work, that too not permanent. The respondents 1 and 2 called for applications to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Keelarangiam, Thiruppuvanam Block, Sivagangai District. She submitted her application. The third respondent called her for interview on 06.09.2017, for which she attended along with all required certificates. She came to know that totally six persons applied for the said post. Out of the six candidates, the petitioner was more qualified than others and entitled to be selected, as she was a widow and also residing in the same village. She learnt that the fourth respondent was trying to get selected by putting up pressure and influence. The fourth respondent was not actually qualified to compete the the post, as her husband Balaji was a Government employee, working in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Karaikudi. Therefore, she submitted a representation to the first respondent on 06.11.2017, informing him that the fourth respondent was not a qualified person. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the official respondents failed to take into consideration the proceedings of the Special Commissioner/ Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and NMP (S.W.7) Department, in his letter No.355/S.W.7 (1) /1.2.2008, dated 20.03.2008, wherein it was specifically directed that destitute widow and poor have to be given preference to the post of Anganwadi Worker. He would further submit that selection process would be done by granting marks to the candidates for the place of residence, age, educational qualification, economic condition and other priorities, such as widow, inter caste marriage and other aspects, as per the guidelines issued by the Government. As no other priority candidate was available except the petitioner, she was to be provided with the employment. The learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court, that, at the time of admission of the Writ Petition, this Court directed the official respondents to keep one post of Anganwadi Worker vacant. He would further submit that the respondents failed to consider the primary fact that the petitioner was a destitute widow and, therefore, she was entitled to get priority over other candidates.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents, would submit that the petitioner, the fourth respondent and two other applicants were residing in the same hamlet of Keelarangiam in Melarangiam Panchayat. The petitioner was aged about 30 years and the fourth respondent was aged about 32 years. As the fourth respondent was older than all other candidates, she was appointed to the post, as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.110, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW-7) Department, dated 14.05.2012.

5. The vacancy position available in the post of Anganwadi Workers is brought to the notice of this Court, in writing. Veeranendal Anganwadi Centre is 7 kms. away from Keelarangiam and Melarangiam Anganwadi Centres, and the post at Ayyampettai Anganwadi Centre, which is within the distance of 14 kms., is vacant.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a de