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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner as Anganwadi workers in spite of merit, as illegal, arbitrary, consequently set aside the appointment of 5th respondent and direct the respondents to review the whole selection process in respect of appointment to the post of Anganavadi worker for K.Venkatapuram, Kothachervu Mandal, Anathapur District

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 48972 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 to submit the status report on selection process in respect of Anganawadi worker for K.Venkatapuram, Kothachervu Mandal, Anathapur District in the interest of justice

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. The petitioner is challenging the appointment of the Anganwadi Worker. It is the petitioner’s case that she is more meritorious than the 5th respondent, having secured higher marks in the X Class examination. The petitioner further alleges that the 5th respondent submitted a fake X Class marks list. On these grounds, the appointment of the 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker is assailed in the present writ petition.

2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the petitioner secured 314 marks in the SSC examination and, in fact, obtained higher marks than respondent No.5. However, the Selection Committee awarded 9 weightage marks to the petitioner in the overall merit list, whereas respondent No.5 was awarded 10.30 marks. It is further submitted that respondent No.5 has also completed SSC and that the certificate submitted by her was duly verified.

3. It is stated that the petitioner was awarded proportionate weightage marks for her X Class marks, and similarly, respondent No.5 was also awarded proportionate weightage. However, the Selection Committee considered various other relevant factors during the selection process and, on an overall assessment, preferred the appointment of respondent No.5.

4. Recording the same, the grounds raised for challenging the appointment of respondent No.5 do not instill any confidence warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.