W.P.No.13060 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 07.07.2026 Pronounced on : 10.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.13060 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 S.Soundari ... Petitioner vs 1. District Collector and the Project Head for Integrated Child Development Scheme, Thiruvallur District,Thiruvallur. 2.The Project Officer, Child Development Child Development Scheme Project Office, No.96 A, GNT Road, Gumudipoondi, Thiruvallur District. 3.Jay Sheela 4. K.Bharath Kumar, President, Eguvarpalayam Panchayat, Kumaranaickanpettai Village, 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13060 of 2011 Eguvarpalayam Post, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur (R4 impleaded as per order dated 23.08.2011 by NPVJ in M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2011 in W.P.No.13060 of 2011) … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order in proceedings R.C.No.1115/A2/2009 dated 31.01.2011 of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to issue appointment order appointing the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in the ICDS Centre at Kumara Naicken Pettai with effect from 11.01.2011, the date on which the 3rd respondent was allowed to join duty with all monetary and consequential benefits, award costs. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Manishkumar for Mr.R.Krishnaswamy For Respondents : Mrs.Y.Kavitha Government Advocate O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 2. The petitioner, by the present writ petition has assailed the action 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13060 of 2011 of the first respondent in issuing proceedings dated 03.01.2011, appointing, the 3rd respondent to the post of Anganwadi Worker, on the ground that the said appointment is contrary to the conditions, in particular, conditions No.3 and 5 mentioned in the application, under which the respondents had called for the eligible candidates to apply for the said post. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that she belongs to Kumara Naicken Pettai/Hamlet where the Anganwadi Centre, for which, the appointment was undertaken is located and as such, the respondents are required to appoint her as per condition No.5 being a resident of the said hamlet; and that the respondents in violation of the said condition have appointed the 3rd respondent who belongs to Kongal Hamlet. It is thus, contended that the impugned order is vitiated and is contrary to the conditions of recruitment to be undertaken and is liable to be quashed with a consequential direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13060 of 2011 4. Counter affidavit on behalf of the first and second respondents is filed. 5. The respondents, while denying the writ averments, mainly contended that Anganwadi workers and Helpers are appointed and engaged to the Integrated Child Department Scheme (ICDS) to address the malnutrition, health and development needs of children between ages of 0-6 years as well as pregnant and nursing mothers, for which, Anganwadi Centres were established across the Country; that the petitioner had applied for the post of Anganwadi worker at Kumara Naicken Pettai Centre and participated in the interview conducted on 12.04.2010, along with 13 eligible candidates; that the selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the Government orders and guidelines then in force; that there is no method of informing the candidate of her selection or rejection orally; that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent belonging to the same hamlet; that the respondents authorities upon due consideration of all the eligibility criteria have selected and appointed the 3rd respondent to the said post and issued proceedings dated 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13060 of 2011 03.01.2011; and that the selected candidate had assumed charge on 11.01.2011. 6. 6. The respondents, by the counter affidavit further contended that though the petitioner had applied for the said post in the selection process undertaken in the year 2010, the petitioner did not apply or participate in the subsequent recruitment process in the post of Anganwadi worker, despite notifications were issued from time to time in the District and the petitioner is presently aged about 55 years and is no longer eligible for appointment in view of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.31, Social Welfare and Women Employment Department dated 12.03.2025 applicable in relation to appointment of Anganwadi workers; that on account of passage of time, the petitioner would not be in a position to discharge the duties of an Angawadi worker where she is required to conduct Pre-school activities for Children, imparting health and natural Education, nutrition education to mothers, undertaking home visits and assisting health authorities in the implementation of immunisation and other public program. 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13060 of 2011 7. Contending as above, the respondents seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 9. The fulcrum of the petitioner's case is that she belongs to the hamlet of Kumara Naicken Pettai; that since, the Centre to which appointment of Anganwadi worker to be appointed is located in the said hamlet, the respondents authorities are required to appoint the petitioner, being a resident of the hamlet as per condition No.5 of the application, as against the 3rd respondent who belongs to Kongal hamlet which is a neighbouring hamlet. 10. The petitioner further claimed that the Nativity certificate as issued by the Tahsildar and also her Family Card record her family residence 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13060 of 2011 as Kumara Naicken Pettai and thus, her exclusion is illegal. Though the petitioner contended that Kumara Naicken Pettai is a hamlet, no material is placed on record to show the said area being recorded as hamlet of Eguvarpalayam Village in revenue records. On the other hand, the term “Pettai” itself indicates that the said name is based on the size and level of infrastructure existing as compared to 'hamlet' which is a tiny, isolated rural settlement. 11. In so far as, Condition No.5 mentioned in the Application Form, by which, the petitioner had submitted her candidature to the post of Anganwadi worker on which heavy reliance is placed to claim that her candidature should be considered over the private respondent, firstly, it is to be noted, that as to whether the said form having been supplied by the concerned ICDS authorities and the said condition mentioned therein being supported by any Rules and Regulations governing the appointment of Angawadi workers or the said form is a privately printed form putting a question mark on its authenticity with the said condition printed. Thus, the 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13060 of 2011 claim made by the petitioner without support of any terms and conditions of appointment by the official respondent cannot be accepted as a valid condition, for the petitioner to claim her appointment to the exclusion of the private respondent. 12. Further, the Nativity certificate obtained by the petitioner from the concerned Revenue authorities on 22.03.2010 shows that she belongs to Eguvarpalayam Village, Gummudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District and there is no mention of either Kumara Naicken Pettai village or the Kumara Naicken Pettai is a hamlet of Eguvarpalayam Village. Hamlets are always located to an adjacent existing village and is an isolated Rural settlement of a group of houses outside or adjacent to an existing village. Even in the writ petition cause title, the petitioner had described her residential address only as Kumara Naicken Pettai, and not as, it is hamlet of a village. 13. On the other hand, the Family Card of the petitioner's family of the year 2005-2009 records the Kumara Naicken Pettai as a colony of 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13060 of 2011 Eguvarpalayam Village. Thus, the petitioner cannot be considered as a resident of hamlet. Further, admittedly the Kongal is a hamlet of Eguvarpalayam Village and since, the 3rd respondent is a resident of the Kongal hamlet of Eguvarpalayam Village, her selection to the post of Anganwadi Worker cannot be held to be contrary to the conditions mentioned in the application for the petitioner to feel aggrieved or agitated. 14. In view of the above, the challenge to the impugned proceeding has to fail. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10.07.2026 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No msv To 1. District Collector and the Project Head for Integrated Child Development Scheme, Thiruvallur District,Thiruvallur. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13060 of 2011 2.The Project Officer, Child Development Child Development Scheme Project Office, No.96 A, GNT Road, Gumudipoondi, Thiruvallur District. T. VINOD KUMAR , J. msv Pre-delivery order made in W.P.No.13060 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 10.07.2026 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis