APHC010022662013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 24428/2013 Between:

1. C .NALINI DEVI @ REDDY NALINI DEVI, W/O.C.PRAKASH,, OCC:UN-

EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.8-2-107, S.N.PETA, URAVAKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ANANTAPUR, -

2. T HE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, ANANTAPUR.

3. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

4. T HE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, URAVAKONDA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

5. P SANTHOSHINI W/O B JAYASIMHA, AGE:MAJOR, R/O.PATAPETA, URAVAKONDA (V) & (M), ANANTAPUR 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 to issue appropriate writ or 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 Anganavadi Worker in respect of Patapeta, Uravakonda Village and Mandal of Anantapur District in the selections made on 29-03-2013 though the petitioner is meritorious than the 5th respondent in all aspects is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art.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 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 30064 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 direct the respondents not to appoint any candidate as Anganavadi worker in respect of Patapeta, Uravakonda Village and Mandal of Anantapur District in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S D GOWD Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following:

Order:-

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is informed that the learned counsel for the petitioner has passed away.

2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that the cause in the writ petition would not survive any further, as the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming to be more meritorious than the 5^th respondent. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner had secured 364 marks in the 10^th Class examination and the 5^th respondent had secured only 295 marks in the 10^th Class examination. As such, the petitioner claims to be more meritorious and ought to have been appointed as Anganwadi Worker in place of the 5^th respondent. It is submitted that on these grounds, the present writ petition is filed.

3. It is also submitted that SSC marks are not the only criteria and that the Selection Committee would consider the applicants for the said post and award marks for the oral interview as well. The petitioner was awarded a total of 34 marks by the Selection Committee under overall merit, whereas the 5^th respondent was awarded 37 marks under overall merit. As such, the 5^th respondent stood more meritorious and was the choice of the Selection Committee. It is also submitted that the 5^th respondent was awarded 24.58 weightage marks for the SSC examination, whereas the petitioner was awarded 30.33 weightage marks for the SSC examination. However, under overall merit, the 5^th respondent was the choice of the Selection Committee and stood more meritorious as compared to the petitioner.

4. Considering the same and recording the submissions, this Court finds that the 5^th respondent was selected by the Selection Committee under overall merit. As such, no further orders are required in the writ petition.

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Ther