APHC010677162013 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: 19014/2013 Between:

1. N ILAVALLU MEENAKSHI,, W/O. T. SREENIVASULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.18-102, NALLASINGAIAHGARIPALLI VILLAGE, REDDYPALLI POST, 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. K RAMANAMMA, W/O. A. RAM MOHAN, 32 YEARS, R/O.

NALLASINGAIAHGARIPALLI VILLAGE, REDDYPALLI POST, NALLAMADA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 toto issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature 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 23238 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 to suspend the proceedings No.07/ICDS/2013, dated: 27.04.2013 of the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE

ORDER:

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the 5^th respondent as an Anganwadi worker. Though the petitioner secured more marks in the SSC examination, respondent Nos.1 to 4 preferred the 5^th respondent instead of appointing the petitioner. The petitioner claims that she secured 337 marks out of 600 in the SSC examination, whereas respondent No.5 secured 267 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 41.52 marks to respondent No. 5, whereas the petitioner secured 33.98 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.

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:11.03.2026 NKA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19014 of 2013 Date: 11.03.2026 NKA