APHC010484962012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20770/2012 Between:

Smt. M.rajeswari, ...PETITIONER AND The District Selection Committee Of ...RESPONDENT(S)

Anganwadi Workers and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY

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

The petitioner is challenging the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in appointing the 3^rd respondent as an Anganwadi worker for the A.Vaddipalli center, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was married to a resident of A.Vaddipalli and was residing in the said village. The petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi worker in pursuance of the notification dated 26.02.2012 for the post of Anganwadi worker. Along with the application, the petitioner submitted the relevant documents that were required. The petitioner also submitted a residence certificate issued by the competent authority certifying her residence within A.Veddipalli village. The respondents, after scrutinizing the documents submitted, issued proceedings of appointment to the 3^rd respondent, duly considering the petitioner as a non-resident of the said village.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3^rd respondent was also initially a resident of A.Vaddipalli hamlet in Anantapuram District and the residence certificate submitted by the 3^rd respondent is identical to the residence certificate submitted by the petitioner.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the 2^nd respondent submits that the candidate applying for the post of Anganwadi worker must essentially be a resident of the same village for which they are applying. The attention of the Court is drawn at paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the 2^nd respondent became suspicious of certain non-local applications. It also stated that an oral representation was made to the District Collector, who issued oral instructions to the 2^nd respondent to make a representation to the MRO of the concerned area to list out the local and non-local candidates basing on the documents. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner submitted a bogus residence certificate and as such, her application was not considered. The 3^rd respondent was preferred since, in the interview, the petitioner secured only 39 points, whereas the 3^rd respondent secured 60.75 points. It is stated that even on merit, the 3^rd respondent surpassed the petitioner’s score. It is further submitted that the selection committee conducted a detailed evaluation of the candidates and accordingly, preferred the 3^rd respondent.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the 3^rd respondent has been continuing in service from the date of her selection.

6. Considering the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the selection was taken up by the committee and the 3^rd respondent was selected based on her merit, having secured 60.75 points, the petitioner could not be considered on merit.

7. Recording the same, no further orders are required in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________

JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 27.01.2025 NKA HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.20770 of 2012 Date: 27.01.2025 NKA