The residential criteria in public employment must not discriminate and can only serve as a preference when qualifications are equal. The court upheld the third respondent's appointment based on superior qualifications.

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2. The Petitioner, seeking appointment to the post of Mini Anganwadi Worker in the Vadakikalam Anganwadi Centre under Marungapuri Taluk, had earlier filed W.P.(MD) No. 18143 of 2017, praying for a direction to appoint her to the said post. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 22.09.2017, upon noticing that the 3^rd Respondent had already been appointed. This Court held that the appropriate course of action available to the Petitioner was to challenge the appointment of the 3^rd Respondent, and liberty was granted to do so.

3. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the appointment of the 3^rd Respondent, made vide order dated 11.09.2017. When the writ petition came up for admission on 22.11.2017, notice was accepted on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents, and notice was ordered to be served on the 3^rd Respondent.

4. On behalf of the 2^nd Respondent, a counter affidavit dated 29.01.2018 was filed. The Petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit dated 13.09.2024 and also submitted written arguments dated 28.07.2025. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd Respondent, the reason assigned for selecting the 3^rd Respondent is set out as follows:—

“5. It is submitted that the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview are as follows:-

As the 3^rd respondent has secured more marks than other candidates she was appointed as Mini Anganwadi Worker in Vadakikalam Anganwadi Center.

6. Regarding the averment made in paras Nos. 5 to 14, it is submitted that the residence of the 3^rd respondent is within 0.5 km and hence she was rightly awarded 3 marks for the residence. As the petitioner’s residence is within 2 km she was awarded with 3 marks for residence.

7. Regarding the averments in grounds (a) to (f) it is submitted that the 3^rd respondent was appointed as Mini Anganwadi Worker in Vadakikalam Anganwadi Center only as per G.O.Ms.No.110 and after conducting interview in a transparent manner.”

5. However, in her rejoinder affidavit and in the written arguments, the Petitioner contested the stand taken by the Respondents and placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.110, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW7) Department, dated 14.05.2012. Paragraph 2.8 of the said Government Order prescribes the residential criteria for aspirants to the post of Mini Anganwadi Worker, which reads as follows:—

“2.8 Residency The Government direct that the applicant should be the resident of the same hamlet. If no eligible / suitable candidate from the same hamlet is available, the candidates from the neighbouring hamlets of the same panchayat of the particular centre shall be considered. Even then, eligible / suitable candidates are not available, the candidates from the neighbouring panchayats located within 10 kms shall be considered for the appointment of Anganwadi worker.

In respect of Anganwadi centres in the Municipality / Corporation area, the applicant residing in the same ward shall be considered. If no eligible / suitable candidate from the same wa