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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the proceedings No.86/A/2013, Dt.23.11.2013 issued by the 5th respondent in appointing the 6th respondent as Mini Anganwadi Worker of Gownivaripalli Village, Gorantla Mandal, Anantapur District is illegal and arbitrary and also in contrary to GOMs.No.21, Dt.24.08.2007 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to appoint the petitioner as Mini Anganwadi Worker of Gownivaripalli Village, Gorantla Mandal, Anantapur District forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 35905 OF 2014

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 2 to 5 to consider the representation Dt.19.08.2014 and 08.09.2014 of the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon/1)1e Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV-CHILD WELFARE(AP)

2. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP)

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

WRIT PETITION No.28683 of 2014

ORDER:

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in appointing the 6th respondent as an Anganwadi Worker in place of the petitioner.

2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.1 to 5 issued a fabricated call letter to the 6th respondent, calling upon her to appear for an interview on 17.11.2013, whereas the proceedings relating to the said letter are dated 23.11.2013, i.e., much after the date of the interview. It is submitted that, in order to create a record projecting the selection process as transparent, the respondents generated the said call letter allegedly issued to respondent No.6. The petitioner refers to the call letter issued to her, which was dated 07.11.2013, calling upon her to appear for an interview on 15.11.2013. On these grounds, the present writ petition is filed challenging the appointment of respondent No.6.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the Selection Committee conducted the selection process in a transparent and fair manner and awarded marks to the candidates who appeared for the interview. It is submitted that only the 6th respondent attended the interview, whereas the petitioner failed to attend the same. Having failed to attend the interview, the petitioner has filed a document which is not available in the records of the respondent authorities, solely for the purpose of maintaining the present writ petition.

4. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on record, no grounds are made out by the petitioner to unsettle the selection and appointment of respondent No.6.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.