Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 19049/2013
Between:
1. M . SUKANYA,, W/O. D. RAMESH BABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. DONNIKOTA VILLAGE, NALLAMADA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. T HE PROJECT DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT
2. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
3. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
4. T HE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER ICDS PROJECT, KADIRI WEST, KADIRI - 515591, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
5. G PRASHANTHI, W/O. G. PRAKASH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. DONNEKOTA VILLAGE & POST, NALLAMADA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date:11.03.2026
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toIssue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the Inature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as a Anganwadi Worker by its proceedings No. 07/ICDS/2013, dated: 27.04.2013 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 23272 OF 2013
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the proceedings No. 07/ICDS/2013, dated: 27.04.2013 of the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass
ORDER:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the 5th respondent as an Anganwadi worker. Though the petitioner secured more marks in the SSC examination, respondent Nos.1 to 4 preferred the 5th respondent instead of appointing the petitioner. The petitioner claims that she secured 390 marks out of 600 in the SSC examination, whereas respondent No.5 secured 379 marks. As such, the petitioner claims to be more meritorious as compared to respondent No.5.
2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the criteria for selection are detailed in the notification. It is further submitted that the candidates are only required to have passed the X Class examination and that there is no provision for awarding additional marks for securing higher marks in the X Class examination. It is also submitted that the Selection Committee conducted the selection process in a transparent manner and the petitioner also appeared for the interview and participated in the selection process. The Selection Committee awarded 42.68 marks to respondent No. 5, whereas the petitioner secured 38.08 marks in the selection process. As such, there is no discrimination against the petitioner.
3. Recording the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
